Division  JiiJi^  I  I  bO 


..CA 


f/ 


1 


•4^ 


The  Negative  Criticism 

AND 

The  Old  Testament. 


AN    ALL    AROUND    SURVEY    OF    THE    NEGATIVE  CRITICISMFROM 
THE    ORTHODOX    POINT  OF    VIBVT,  WITH  SOME 
PARTICULAR  REFERENCE  TO 
CHETNE'S  "FOUNDERS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM." 


BY 


THEODORE   E.  'SCHMAUK. 


LEBANON, 
PENNSYLVANIA, 
A  LDUS    COMPANY.   PUBLISHERS, 

1894. 


COPYRIGHT,  1894. 
By   THEODORE  E.  SCHMAUK. 


Preface. 

fTlHE  beginning  of  this  book  is  Biblical.  The 
I  second  part  is  Biblical  and  historical. 
The  third  partis  prevailingly  philosophical. 
The  last  part  is  prevailingly  literary  and 
archaeological. 

A  hurried  reader  should  glance  through 
chapters  two,  one,  Ave,  fifteen  and  sixteen, 
and  at  the  literary  methods  of  the  new  criti- 
cism, as  detailed  in  chapter  twenty-one  and 
onwards.  The  trained  reader  may  appreciate 
the  attempt  to  delineate  the  negative  critical 
mental  type  in  chapters  seventeen  to  twenty- 
two,  in  which  chiefly  the  references  to  Cheyne 
occur.  One  wishing  to  weigh  dry  facts  will 
find  them  largely  in  the  front  part,  where 
there  has  been  great  indebtedness  to  Prof.  W. 
J.Beecher. 

There  is  a  sequence  running  throughout. 
The  series  of  external,  is  followed  by  the  se- 
ries of  internal  evidence.  This  leads  to  the 
series  of  defective  raotivs  underlying  the 
theory,  and  finally  to  the  series  of  defective 
means  through  which  the  theory  manifests 
itself. 


♦  ar\d  ♦ 

{^\li  ©Id  fpestamef\f. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Brief  View  of  Features  of  the  Negative  Criticism,   v 
Page  9.  , 

Brief  View  of  the  Effects  of  the  Negative  Criticism. 
Page  11 

Brief  View  of  the  Methods  of  the  Negative  Criticism.   "^ 

Page  13.  y 

Brief  View  of  the  Movement  as  Characteristic  of  the  Age.    "^ 
Page  16. 

Brief  View  of  the  Literature  and  History  of  the  Negative  Crit- 
icism. 
Page  17. 

Brief  View  of  the  Causes,  Character,  Success  of  the  Negative 

Movement. 
Page  20. 

Preliminary  Argument  in  General  on  the   Value  of  Circum- 

stantial  Evidence  in  the  Case. 
Page  29. 


The   Argument. 

CHAPTER  I. 

All  the  Positive  Evidence  of  the  Old  Testament  Itself  is  against 

the  Negative  Theory. 
Page  35. 

CHAPTER  II. 

All  the  Positive  Evidence  of  the  New  Testament  is  against  the 

Negative  Theory. 
Page  47. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Evidence  of  Ancient  Jewish  and    Christian   History    is 

against  the  Negative  Theory. 
Page  51 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Evidence  of  the  Later  Historical  Books  of  the   Old  Testa- 
ment does  not  Warrant  the  Negative  Conclusions. 
Page  56 

CHAPTER   V. 

It  is  against  the  Negative  Theory  that  it  Makes  all  Israel's  Lit- 
erature Spring  from  the  Period  of  the 

Nation's  Decline  and  Fall. 
Page  62 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Principal  Argument  of  the  Negative  Theory  to  Establish 

This  Post-Exilian  Authorship,  is  Inconclusive. 
Page  68 

CHAPTER   VII. 

The  Ground  on  which  this  Argument  Rests  is  Contradicted   by 

the  Facts. 
Page  74 

CHAPTER    VIII. 

The  Negative  Theory  Fails  to  Explain  Other  Cognate  Facts:— 

The  Origin  of  the  Sacrificial  Code. 
Page  80 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Negative  Theory  Fails  to  Fit  Deuteronomy  into  the  Time 

of  Josiah,  and  Leviticus  into  the  Time  of  Ezra. 
Page  85 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Negative  Theory  Fails  to  Explain  the  Presence  of  Many 

Regulations  that  are  Meaningless  on  its  own  Hypothesis. 
Page   88 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Negative  Theory  Fails  to  Present  a  Plausible  View  of  the 

Personality  of  Moses. 
Page  91 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The    Negative    Theory    Contradicts    itself  in  Explaining  its. 

Term  Mosaic. 
Page  93 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  Negative  Theory  Fails  to  Explain  the  Rise  of  the  Prophets. 

Page  96 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

The  Negative  Theory  Forces  the  Words  of  the  Prophets. 

Page  99 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Negative  Theory  Assumes  that  the  Mosaic  Law  was  Smug- 
gled in  Twice . 
Page  102 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

The  Negative   Theory  Assumes  a  Pious  Fraud  on  the  Part  of 

Old  Testament  Writers. 
Page  111 

CHAPTER  XVII' 

The  Negative  Theory  is  Essentially  a  Radical  one,  and   Toler- 
ates No  Half-Way  Measures. 
Page  119 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

The  Negative    Theory'' s  Secret  Strength  is  a  Desire  to  Deny  the 

Sux>ernatural .  •, 

Page  129 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

The  Conclusions  of  the  Negative  Theory  Affect  the  Authority 

of  our  Lord's  Teaching. 
Page  139 

CHAPTER  XX. 

The  Negative  Theory  Throws  Overboard  all  External  and  Tra- 
ditional Evidence. 
Page  144 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

The  Reasoning  of  the  Negative  Criticism  is  not  Freed  from  the 

Weakness  of  Its  Own  Mental  Type. 
Page  150 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

The  whole  Theory  of  the  Pentateuch  is,  with  one  exception,  De- 
pendent entirely  upon  Internal  Evidence. 
Page  155 
CHAPTER  XXIII. 
The  Negative  Theory  is  Obliged  to  Introduce  a  large  number  of 
Reckless  Internal  Assumptions.    Redactions  and 
Interpolations. 
It  Fails  to  Show  why  the  Redactors  are  not  Consistent. 
Yet  It  Rejects  Pentateuchal  Legislation  onthe  ground  of  Incon- 
sistencies. 
Page  159 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

The  Negative  Theory  Forces  a  number  of  Passages  to  Make 

Them  Agree  with  its  Hypothesis. 

Page  168 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

The  Negative  Theory  Needlessly  Assumes  that  Writings  are 

Non- Authentic. 

Page  171 


8 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

The  Negative  Theory  Assumes  that  the  Same  Things  Will  No 

Happen  Twice,  or  he  Described  Over  Again . 

Page  177. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

The  Negative  Theory  Assumes  that  a  Writing  which  can  be 

Decomposed  into  Two  Narratives  is  a  Compilation. 

Page  182. 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

The  Negative  Theory  Assumes  that  Similarity  of  Style  Assures 

Identity  of  Authorship. 

Page  185. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

The  Negative  Theory  Assumes  that  Dissimilar  Style  assures 
Diverse  Authorship.    The  Use  of  Analogy,  and  the 
Value  of  Internal  Literary  Principles. 
Page  189. 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

The  Negative  Theory  fails  to  note  the  force  of  the  argument 

from  General  Internal  Consistency. 

Page  196. 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

The  Negative  Theory  fails  to  note  the  drift  of  the  argument 

from  Subject,  Style,  Thought,  Constructions  and  Words. 

Page  200. 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

The  Negative  Theory  Assumes  a  Primitive  Rudeness  in  the  Age 

of  the  Exodus,  lohich  History  Now  Disproves. 

Page  206 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

The  Post-Exilian  Theory  is  improbable  in  view  of  discoveries  in 

Egyptology  and  Assyriology,  and  in  view  of  the  Scenes 

Topography  and  Characters  of  the  Pentateuch.' 
Page  212-232 


The  Negative  Criticism 

AND 

The  Old  Testament. 


npHE  negative  criticism  claims  that  the  religion  of 

the  Old  Testament  is  an  evolution,  not  a  reve-  ^ 
lation.     Like  all  other  religions,  it  was  at  first  polytheis- 
tic and  idolatrous.     Beginning  as  an  altogether  natural 
product  of  the  Hebrew  mind,  it  developed  in  slow  and 
gradual  stages,  passing  into  the  pure  monotheism  of  the 
prophets,  and   culminating   in  the  complex  legal  cere- 
monial of  the  priestly  law.     It  has  been  left  to  this  era 
of  Darwin  to  discover  that  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  like 
all  other  religions,  was  a  historical  development,  built 
up  on  the  principle  of  historic  evolution,  of  unconscious  ^ 
selection,  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest. 

The  Old  Testament  writings,  then,  as  we  have  been 
taught  to  know  them,  do  not  convey  a  correct  impres- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament  religion.  They  reverse  all  the 
great  facts.      Israel's  laws,  festivals,  institutions,  sacri- 


10  INTRODUCTORY. 

/  fices  and  worship  were  a   growth    of  ages,  arriving  at 
completeness  only  in  the  last  days  of  the  Old  Testament. 

J  They  were  not  revealed  directly  and  completely  in  a  pat- 
,  tern  which  God  showed  Mjses   on  the  Mount;  nor  his- 
torically established  in  actual   fact,   as  the  record  says 
they  were. 

So  the  teaching  of  Christianity  that  the  law  came  by 
Moses,  needs  to  be  revised.  The  negative  criticism  be- 
lieves that  the  complete  Old  Testament  Law,  in  its  per- 
fection, was  not  revealed  by  God  to  Moses  at  the  very 
beginning  of  Israel's  history.  The  Kuehnen-Wellhausen 
hypothesis  postulates  as  a  fundamental  fact  that  Israel 
was  slowly  lifted  from  the  polytheism  of  its  heathen 
neighbors  through  the  power  of  the  prophets,  and  passed 
into  the  stage  of  ritualistic  formalism  at  the  late  date 
when  the  Old  Testament  record  received  its  present 
shape.  The  hypothesis  postulates  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Law,  being  no  exception  to  the  universal  law  of 
natural  development,  was  a  gradual  growth,  first  the 
blade,  then  the  ear,  and  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear. 

Only  the  blade  is  Mosaic.  The  ear  appeared  in  the 
v'  days  of  King  Josiah.  The  full  corn  was  ripened  in  the 
school  of  Ezra.  He  labelled  the  finished  ear  "Mosaic," 
and  imparted  an  antique  appearance  to  the  whole.  He  did 
this  by  shelling  the  grains  from  the  original  cob,  brown- 
ing the  young  corns  of  his  own  day  with  archaic  dye, 
bleaching  the  older  ones  where  needed,  and  then  re-ar- 
ranging the  whole  in  a  new  and  artificial  setting. 

It  is  this  ingeniously  arranged  mosaic  that  constitutes 


INTRODUCTORY.  11 

the  Old  Testament,  as  we  now  have  it.  Ezra's  work  was 
so  cleverly  done  that  the  production  bears  a  surprisingly- 
real  appearance  of  historical  actuality,  and  the  world  for 
all  these  centuries  has  taken  it  for  such,  Christ  himself 
not  disturbing  the  belief. 

Though  certain  facts  have  always  been  perplexing  to 
Old  Testament  students,  it  was  not  until  the  negative 
criticism  instituted  a  thorough- going  analysis,  on  scien- 
tific principles,  of  the  various  incongruous  corns,  that  the 
surprising  fact  came  to  light,  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  a  post-exilian  writing;  that  the  whole  Old 
Testament  is  a  series  of  artificially  arranged,  not  of  nat- 
urally succeeding  strata;  and  that  the  history  of  the 
children  of  Israel  is  very  difi'erent  from  the  traditional 
view  of  it.  The  great  task  before  the  negative  criticism 
at  the  present  moment,  is  the  reconstruction  of  the  Old 
Testament,  Ezra's  cob  must  be  re-shelled,  each  corn 
picked  out,  examined,  and  put  back  into  its  natural  ar- 
rangement, on  the  theory  that  the  law  came  not  by  Mo- 
ses, but  ripened  subsequently  to  the  Babylonian  exile. 
'yHE    theory    introduces  a    revolution  into    Ue~^ 

brew  history.  Abraham  was  a  mythical  figure. 
Moses  wrote  no  laws  nor  history;  David,  no  psalms;  Sol-  ^ 
omon,  no  proverbs.  The  plagues  did  not  descend  mirac- 
ulously upon  the  land  of  Egypt.  The  pillar  of  fire  did 
not  precede  the  journeying  Israelite.  The  fire  and  thun- 
der and  quaking  of  Sinai,  and  God's  appearance  with 
speech  unto  Moses  are  rhetorical  imagery.  The  Lord  did 
not  command  the  construction  of  a  tabernacle.  The  latter 


1^  INTRODUCTORY. 

is  itself  an  entirely  fictitious  figment  of  the  age  of  Ezra, 
being  simply  the  reflex  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  trans- 
ported back  to  those  early  times.  For,  the  historical  and 
prophetical  books  know  nothing  of  a  central  and  only 
place  of  worship,  and  the  Jehovist  document  sanctions 
many  altars.  There  is  no  trace  of  sin  and  guilt  ofl'erings  in 
the  Old  Testament,  before  Ezekiel.  Consequently  there  is 
no  prefiguring  of  Christ.  There  is  no  Passover,  no  day 
of  Atonement,  no  Sabbath  and  Jubilee  years,  before  the 
later  days.  In  the  earliest  period  there  was  no  distinction 
between  the  clergy  and  the  laity  ;  no  Aaron  by  the  side 
of  Moses.  Everybody  might  sacrifice.  There  was  a 
tribe  of  Levi,  but  it  perished  before  the  Judges.  The 
High  Priest  is  a  personage  brought  in  by  the  priestly 
code  whose  importance  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  remain- 
der of  the  Old  Testament.  The  divine  and  supernatural 
is  eliminated,  according  to  the  radical  school  of  critics  ; 
while  the  conservative  school  practically  identifies  inspi- 
ration with  natural  genius,  or  holds  that  the  Word  of 
God  came  to  the  Old  Testament  writers  as  it  comes  to 
all  contemplative  minds  in  all  ages,  even  now  yet,  by 
immediate  mystical  communion.  ^  The  Old  Testament 
is  inspired  as  Homer  and  Shakespeare  are  ! 

It  these  things  be  so,  it  follows  that  God's  Law,  as  a 
dispensation  preparatory  to  the  coming  of  the  Gospel,  is 
not  the  basis  of  all  of  Israel's  religious  history  from 
Exodus  to  Malaehi  ;  and  that  the  promise  and  prophecy 
and  doctrine  of  a  Redeemer  and  of  Redemption  are  not 
(1  Verhum  DeU—Roxton.) 


INTRODUCTORY.  13 

the  sum  and  substance,  the  sole  and  sufficient  reason  of 
existence  for  the  Old  Testament.  On  the  other  hand, 
these  writings  receive  '^a  basis  of  naturalness  and  of  ab- 
solute rationality,"  and  are  brought  into  touch  with 
"universal  history  and  the  religious  consciousness  of  the 
race."  They  are  inspired,  only  more  so,  as  the  other  sa- 
cred writings  of  the  world  are,  as  are  the  religions  of 
Egypt,  and  Greece,  and  Rome. 

iT  is  well  to  have  in  view   the    working    of   the 
Methods   by  which  the  negative  criticism   came  to 
conclude  that  its  most  important  Old  Testament  writer,  •• 
Ezra;   a  sort  of  Moses  recUvivus,  living  a  thousand  years  • 
later  than  the  time  of  the  original  Moses,  took  the  old  • 
traditions  and  documents  and  dressed  them  up  in  the  in- 
terests of  his  own  age,  whilst  clothing  them  in  the  garb 
of  antiquity,  and  presenting  them  as  the  original  religion 
of  Israel  to  the  Jewish  congregation  of  bis  own  time  and 
to  posterity. 

In  the  first  place  the  critics  have  made  a  literary  anal-    . 
ysis  of  the  style  and  diction  and  range  of  ideas   in  the 
various  books.     They  have  compared  the  results  of  their 
dissection,  and  have  placed  similar  parts  together  into 
earlier  and  later  documents.      In  the   second  place  they 
have  traced  the  growth  of  laws  and  institutions  in  these     » 
documents.     They  have   learned   in  this   way  that  the 
prophets  are  older  than  the  law,  and   the  psalms  later 
than  both.     There  was  in  fact  no  Old  Testament  at  all 
earlier  than   the   time  of  the  literary  prophets,  Hosea, 
Amos  and  Isaiah,  and  their  contemporaries, in  the  eighth 


14  INTRODUCTORY. 

century  before  Christ.  There  were,  it  is  true,  some  frag- 
ments of  Israelitish  literature. 

The  older  document  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Jeho- 
vist  document,  which  contains  the  decalop:ne  and  the 
whole  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  namely  from  the 
twentieth  to  the  twenty  fourth  chapter  of  Exodus,  and 
includes  large  parts  of  Genesis,  took  its  rise  some  time 
after  the  occupation  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  before 
the  time  of  the  prophets.  In  these  ages  priests  and 
prophets  were  in  conflict  for  pre-eminence.  The  priests 
emphasized  worship,  and  sacrifices,  and  sacred  places 
and  festivals.  The  prophets  represented  morality  and 
spirituality.     The  prophets  prevailed. 

In  the  year  621  B.  C.  another  document,  namely  Deu- 
teronomy, was  prepared.  It  was  intended  to  reform  the 
people.  It  was  pretended  to  have  been  found  in  the  ark 
in  Jerusalem.  This  document,  containing  the  Deuteron- 
omic  legislation,  is  the  offspring  of  the  prophetic 
spirit.  We  see  in  it  that  the  interest  of  society  is  placed 
above  worship.  Everywhere  humane  ends  are  assigned 
for  the  rites  and  offerings.  But  the  result  did  not  corre- 
spond to  its  prophetic  origin.  When  prophecy  allowed 
its  precepts  to  become  practical  laws,  it  died.  The  final 
outcome  of  Deuteronomy,  namely  that  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  was  abolished  everywhere  outside  of  Jerusalem, 
g  reatly  increased  the  influence  of  the  priests  of  Jerusa- 
lem. 

The  third  document  is  the  product  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity.     During  the  exile,  the  Je>vs  of  Babylon,  under 


INTRODUCTORY.  15 

the  lead  of  Ezekiel,  elaborated  the  "Law"  and  reduced 
it  to  writing.     It  embraced  and  corresponded  to  the  sa- 
cred praxis  of  that  time.     Ezra  came  to  Babylon  with 
this  law  in  his  hand.  Heretofore  the  covenant  had  rested 
only  on    Deuteronomy ;  now   it  was    based  on   Ezra's 
book.     And  Ezra's  law  book  was  substantially  our  mod- 
ern "Pentateuch."     In  the  interests  of  the  priests  he 
originated  the  whole  Levitical  law  together  with  almost 
all  of  the  last  fifteen  chapters  of  Exodus,  and  considera- 
ble sections  of  Numbers.     This  which  he  originated   is   ^ 
the  "Priestly  code,"  the  latest  document  ofthePeuta-   >y 
teuch. 

The  striking  facts  of  the  Priestly,  code  are  the  im- 
mense extension  of  the  dues  payable  to  the  priests,  and 
the  sharp  distinction  made  between  the  descendants  of 
Aaron  and  the  common  Levites.  The  striking  princi- 
ples of  the  code  are  its  ideal  of  Levitical  holiness,  its  com- 
plete surrounding  of  life  with  purificatory  and  propitia- 
tory ceremonies,  and  its  prevailing  reference  of  sacrifice 
to  sin.  Everything  is  regarded  from  the  Jerusalem 
point  of  view.  The  nation  and  the  temple  are  identified. 
And  in  this  way  the  j)rophetical  movement,  stooping  to 
become  practical,  arrives  at  complete  externalization. 

This  Priestly  code  was  constructed  as  a  framework 
into  which  to  dovetail  the  earlier  documents,  and  thus 
to  produce  the  Pentateuch.  The  author,  probably  a 
priest,  and  in  touch  with  priestly  traditions  concerning 
the  beginnings  of  Israel,  recorded  them  in  systematic 
order.     He  was  particularly  minute  in  treating  such  an- 


16  INTKODUCTORY. 

cient  ceremonial  institutions  as  the  Sabbath,  Circumci- 
sion, the  Passover,  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Priesthood. 


r^ROM  what  has  been  said  up  to  this  point,  it  will  be 
seen,  that  it  becomes  a  matter  of  importance  to  ex- 
amine the  grounds  on  which  the  negative  criticism  moves 
up  and  sweeps  away  the  faith  of  the  fathers,  and  to  know 
whether  these  grounds  are  able  to  support  the  conclusions 
to  which  they  lead.  A  belief  that  these  grounds  are  not 
merely  inadequate,  but  that  they  are  not  reasonable,  to- 
gether with  the  feeling  that  the  time-spirit  of  the  cen- 
tury has  invested  them  with  a  dangerously  fascinating 
glamour,  has  impelled  the  writer,  somewhat  against  his 
own  inclination,  to  interrupt  the  preparation  of  another 
work  in  the  Biblical  field,  and  to  attempt  the  argument 
against  ^  them  on  the  whole. 

2  "Argument"  is  direct  and  open  warfare.  The  negative  criti- 
cism lias  attacked  with  intent  to  demolish.  It  is  not  in  a  position 
to  say,  "Come,  and  let  us  reason  together'''  It  is  committed  not 
merely  to  a  discussion  of  facts,  but  to  a  contest  of  principles. 


INTRODUCTORY.  17 


r^OR  the  negative  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament, 
apart  from  such  purely  sceptical  animus  as  is  al- 
ways with  us  in  the  world,  is  the  highest  wave  of  a 
general  critical  movement  caused  "by  a  vast  breaking 
up  of  the  waters  of  human  thought,  through  the  intro- 
duction of  certain  modern  principles.  The  flow  of  this 
tidal  wave  of  criticism  is  equally  strong,  and  has  been 
felt  with  equal  keenness,  in  the  secular  realms  of  litera- 
ture and  history,  in  philosophy,  in  sociology  and  politi- 
cal economy  and  even  in  the  ordinary  avenues  of  practi- 
cal business  life.  Having  produced  a  ferment,  success- 
fully or  unsuccessfully, in  all  the  lower  regions  of  thought 
and  truth,  it  has  at  last  reached  the  doors  of  the  loftiest 
and  most  sacred  citadel  of  Christendom,  and  is  rushing 
through  its  portals. 

The  movement  is  distinctively  rooted  in  the  rationalis- 
tic and  revolutionary  soil  of  the  end  of  the  last  century.  ^ 
It  passed  down  through  Eichhorn,  the  all  embracing 
litterateur,  and  Ilgen,  the  linguistic  analyst,  and  De 
Wette,  the  exegete,  and  Gesenius,  the  philologist,  and 
Hitzig,  the  dry,  ingenious  etymologist,  and  Ewald,  the 
intensely  real  exhibiter  of  prophetic  ideas.  Ewald  sowed 
the  critical  seed  liberally  by  his  epoch-making  commen- 

3  It  was  not  generated  tlien,l)ut  earlier.  For  a  more  complete 
historical  resume  compare  Chapter  XVII. 


18  INTRODUCTORY. 

taries  a  nd  prophetical  books  and  his  History  of  Israel.  * 
Thus  the  negative  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  is  both 
the  predecessor  and  the  successor  of  that  brilliant  but 
utterly  routed  school  of.Baur,  Strauss  and  Renan  in  the 
field  of  New  Testament  criticism. 

It  was  in  1834  that  Edward  Reuss,  while  lecturing  to 
his  students  on  introduction  to  the  Old   Testament,  first 
put  forth  the  new  theory.     He  did   so   only   orally,  and 
over  thirty  years   elapsed  before  his   words  bore  fruit  in 
I  the  works  of  two  students  who  heard  him,  Graf  and  Kay- 
'\J  ser.     In  1835  Vatke  made  a  stir  with  his  '*Biblische  The- 
■^  ologie,-'  maintaining   that  the  religion   of  Israel   was  a 
development.     But  his  book  was  not  widely  read  on  ac. 
count  of  the  difficult  Hegelian  terminology.     In  the  same 
year  Leopold  George  put  forth  a  similar  view  as  to  the 
Levitical  Legislation  inhis^'DiealterenJudischen  Feste." 
In  1861  the  first  volume  of  Abraham  Kuehnen's    "His- 
torico-Critical   Investigation"    appeared.     It  was  only 
moderately  radical,  but  in  1862  the  English  Bishop   Co- 
lenso  published;the  first  part  of  his  "Pentateuch  and  Book 
of  Joshua  Critically  Examined,"    producing  a  tremen- 
dous sensation,  and  leading  Kuehnen  much  farther  on  in 
negative  views. 
\/       But  it  was  Grafs  famous  treatise  on  the    "Historical 
\f  Books  of  the  Old    Testament,"  in  1866,  from  which  the 
post-exilian  hypothesis  properly   dates.       Kuehnen   fol- 
lowed and  extended  Graf's  destructive  work  in  his  "Re- 

4  In  form,  Ewald  was  rather  across,  than  exactly  along  the 
lines  of  the  recent  development,  and  his  influence  may  have 
temporarily  held  back  rather  than  advanced  the  latter. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


19 


ligion  of  Israel"  in  1869-70,  and   in   a  series    of  special 
papers.     In  1872  his    "Five  Books  of  Moses"    appeared, 
and  "Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel"  in  1877.     Mean- 
time, Wellhausen,  chief  follower  of  Kuehoen  on  the  conti- 
nent, published  his  '-Text  der  Buecher  Samuel's,"in  1871 ; 
his  article  on  "The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuoh,"  in 
1876,  1877;  his  "Prologemena  zur  Geschichte  Israels"*  in 
1878;  and  his  "Skizzeu  und  Vorarbeiten,"  in  1885.    Kay- 
ser  wrote  his  "D.vorexil.  Buchd.  Urgesch.  Israels  u.  seinu 
Erweiterungen, ' '  in  1874.    Dillman  began  his  commenta- 
ries with  "Genesis,"  in  1875,  and  by  1886  had  published 
his  "Numbers,  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua."     Stade  pub- 
lished his    "Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,"    in   1881-85. 
Cornill  wrote  on  Jeremiah  and  on  Ezechiel   previous  to 
1886,  and  in  1888  his  "Entstching  des  Volkes  Israel  und 
seiner  nationalen  Organization,"  came  out. 

In  1885,Kuehnen  himself  published  an  important  second 
edition  of  his  "Inquiry,"  and  long  before  that  time  he 
had  gained  his  chief  follower  in  Great  Britain,  Robertson 
Smith,  who  was  arousing  great  excitement,  and  who  in 
1881  published  his  lectures  to  his  students  on  "The  Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  and  in  1882  "The 
Prophets  of  Israel."  By  1886,  the  ninth  edition  of  the  > 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  was  out,  with  Wellhausen' s  ar- 
ticle on  "Israel;"  Robertson  Smith's  articles  on  "Mes- 
siah" and  "Psalms,"  etc.;  and  T.  K.  Cheyne's  articles 
on  "Cosmogony,"  "Daniel,"  "Deluge,"  "Isaiah,"  "Jere 
miah,"  etc.     Canon  Cheyne,  Oriel  Professor  in  Oxford, 


20  INTRODUCTORY. 

is  the  main-spring  of  the  thoroughly  negative  movement 
in  the  English  theological  world  at  this  time.  He  is  a 
great  and  accurate  linguist,  witl^  unusually  capacious 
and  sober  powers  of  reasoning  and  judgment,  and  with 
a  bold  spirit.  He  is  very  active  in  propagating  the  new 
spirit  among  young  students  and  is  using  powerful  exer- 
tion to  hurry  up  the  hesitating  pace  of  Driver,  Davidson 
and  other  cautious  scholars,  who  still  love  to  linger  near 
the  gates  of  orthodoxy.  The  new  propaganda  of  the 
English  negative  school  is  the  Salmond-Briggs  Foreign 
International  Library,  and  in  literary  and  theological  cir- 
cles, the  papers  of  the  "Lux  Mundi"  group  of  writers. 
There  is  also  a  school  of  critics  on  the  continent  which 
accepts  the  analytic  method  of  dealing  with  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  denies  the  post  exilic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Diliman  himself,  with  Noeldenke,  Schrader,  and  Strack, 
are  representatives  of  this  school. 

npHE  causes  and  wide-spread  character  of  the  new 

movement,  seeming  to  sweep  the  brightest  scholar- 
ship of  two  generations  into  its  wake,  are  not  less  diffi- 
cult to  indicate,  and  to  struggle  against,  than  were  the 
causes  and  overwhelming  power  of  any  great  philosophi- 
cal or  theological  movement  of  past  ages,  each  in  its  own 
day,  and  until  it  had  run  its  course  and  spent  its  strength. 
There  was  a  time  for  instance  when  the  philosophical 
movement  which  culminated  in  the  hypothesis  of  Hegel 
ruled  the  intellect  of  the  greatest  scholars,  and  when  all 
phenomena  were  interpreted  and  ordered   in  accordance 


Introductory.  ^1 

with  it,  and  it  was  accepted  as  a  certainty,  and  as  the  great 
and  settled  finality  of  the  human  mind.  And  it  was  only 
after  the  lapse  of  decades  and  after  the  tendency  was 
spent,  that  scholars,  though  they  were  as  yet  unable  to 
combat  the  all-embracing  theory  of  this  wonderful  phil- 
osophy, gradually  began  creeping  out  of  the  mazes  of 
its  perfect  reasoning. 

So  in  the  present  day,  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  pene- 
trate to  the  secret  of  power  in  the  negative  criticism,  and 
to  expose  it,  than  it  will  be  a  century  hence,  when  it 
shall  have  become  a  movement  of  the  past.  But  a  cen- 
tury is  a  long  while  for  laith  to  wait,  and  it  is  permissible 
to  meantime  do  what  may  be  possible  towards  explain- 
ing the  movement. 

The  power  of  the  negative  scholarship  is  largely  due 
to  a  triple  conjunction  of  mental  forces,  a  conjunction 
both  new  and  fruitful.  The  modern  rationalistic  motive 
has  combined  with  both  the  modern  linguistic  and  the 
modern  psychological  methods  of  investigation.  The 
rationalistic  motive  working  with  free  hand  in  a  whole 
Bible  full  of  new  philological  and  literary  material,  and 
among  the  underlying  psychological  causes,  whether 
going  about  it  boldly  or  cautiously,  whether  exer- 
cising sober  and  maturely  trained  judgment  or  wild  and 
brilliant  fancy,  becomes  a  creative  re-constructor  of 
a  very  grand  and  momentous  order.  And  so  sure  does 
it  feel  of  the  correctness  of  its  methods  and  the  con- 
sequent certainty  of  its  results,  checked  and  counter- 


>* 


^3  INTRODUCTORY. 

checked  as  they  are  at  almost  every  step  by  cross  induc- 
tive tests,  that  even  when  the  results  are  in  a  constant 
flux,  or  when  conflicting  critics  reach  contradictory  con- 
clusions, ^  each  remains  sure  that  the  carefully  applied 
judgment  of  his  own  school  has  reached  a  historical  cer- 
tainty beyond  a  doubt. 

The  two  greatest  peculiariues  of  the  negative  criticism 
are,  first,  the  necessity  of  disintegrating  the  material  in 
which  it  works  ;  and  second,  the  internal,  literary,  and 
subjective  character  of  its  methods. 

Cheyne  well  calls  the  theory  of  the  negative  criticism 
a  "disintegrating  theory."  That  explains  a  great  part  of 
its  nature,  and  also  of  its  charm  to  a  very  high  order  of 
mind  and  scholarship.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  human  rea- 
son to  be  destructive  and  creative.  When  once  the  fas- 
cinating craze  to  disintegrate,  on  internal  grounds,  seizes 
a  critic,  there  is  no  limit  to  the  minuteness  into  which  it 
divides  the  material  before  it.  The  greater  the  analyti- 
cal and  cross-logical  ability  of  the  critic,  the  more  wonder- 
ful does  his  destructive  and  subsequent  reconstructive 
work  become.  ^  The  books  of  the  Bible  are  thus  not 
merely  each  a   stiff  and  defunct  organism   with  several 

5  Klostermann  of  Kiel,  himself  a  negative  critic,  has  publish- 
ed a  whole  series  of  lengthy  articles  to  show  that  an  entirely 
new  reconstruction  of  the  Pentateuchal  analysis  is  demanded. 
Thus  "sure"  results  of  the  modern  criticism  have  been  discred- 
ited in  its  own  house. 

6  Of  this  fact  Canon  Cheyne's  reasonings  on  tlie  Psalms  are  an 
excellent  example,  and  it  is  his  regret  that  Dr.  Driver  in  his 
treatment  of  the  Psalms,  "with  all  his  love  for  tlie  tiebrew  lan- 
guage, cannot  bring  himself  to  say  that  the  linguistic  argument 
IS  a  primary  one." 


iNTRODUCTORY.  23 

limbs  sadly  out  of  joint,  but  they  are  an  unorganized 
pile  of  old  material,  falling  into  a  greater  and  greater 
multitude  of  smaller  and  smaller  original  pieces  at  tha 
will,  or  according  to  the  needs  of  the  investigator,  along 
any  one  of  an  increasing  number  of  internal  lines  of 
cleavage. 

The  second  characteristic  of  the  new  theory  is  the  sub- 
jective, the  psychological,  the  internal  character  of  the 
field  in  which  the  investigations  are  C(  nducted.  Perfectly 
sober  judgment  may  be  exercised  on  the  internal  phe- 
nomena, and  everywhere  within  the  theory £but  the  theory 
itself  is  held  to  be  established  and  positive,  without  the  L-"^ 
need  of  any  external  witness  or  historical  foundation  or 
corroboration.  In  fact  external  and  objective  history  is 
set  aside  as  unreliable  and  unnecessary,  and  the  literary 
sense  and  feeling  of  the  critic  to  a  great  exteat  supplant 
it.  7  Canon  Cheyne  himself  unguardedly  acknowledges  a 
literary ''feeling,"  namely  that  of  "the  fascination  of 
myths,"  "^  as  a  basis  of  critical  judgment  in  the  younger 
generation  of  scholars. 

It  is  to  be  distinctly  noticed  that  the  negative  criticism 
is  a  critical  literary  movement  of  rationalistic  origin, 
which  did  not  take  its  rise  in  an  objective  historical  field, 
and  which  indeed  ignored  the  historians  and  archaeolo- 
gists as  long  as  it  could  afford  to  do  so.  Further,  it  will 
be  shown,  later  in  this  work,  that  the  great  scholars  who 
are  the  exponents  of  the  theory,  in  their  younger   days 

7  "Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism,"  page  318. 


S4  INTRODUCTORY. 

had  their  home  and  training  in  rationalistic  ideas,  and 
that  with  some  exceptions  their  development  along  this 
line  was  only  what  might  have  been  expected.  Finally, 
it  may  be  said,  that  some  of  these  leaders  appear  to 
have  been  men  constitutionally  drawn  toward  the  more 
free,  and  liberalizing,  and  humanistic  side.  Some  of 
them  e.  g. ,  Wellhausen  and  Kuehnen,  were  probably 
men  whose  bent  of  reasoning  would  have  carried  them 
outside  of  the  church  in  any  age  or  position  ;  and  others, 
e.  g.,  Robertson  Smith,  would  never  have  entered  the 
Biblical  field  at  all,  if  it  had  not  afforded  the  best  open- 
ing for  their  talents  at  the  time  ;  while  others  like  Ewald 
were  "hungry  for  fresh  distinction."  In  short,  we  find  a 
partial  explanation  of  the  negative  criticism  in  the  under- 
lying mental  states  from  which  the  analytic  processes 
spring,  and  in  the  fundamental  nature  of  the  judgments 
which  the  critics  apply  in  using  the  processes. 

As  to  the  success  of  the  theory,  it  may  be  well  to  point 
out  some  of  the  reasons  of  the  rush  of  a  younger  scholar- 
ship of  the  age  after  the  lead  of  the  newer  theory.  For 
there  are  reasons  why  fresh  scholars  are  likely  to  be 
caught  up  into  and  carried  away  by  the  age's  character- 
istic movement,  and  the  surprise  is  that  the  infection  is 
not  even  more  imiversal.  It  is  not  given  to  many  young 
active  minds  to  remain  calmly  on  a  fixed  rock,  when 
they  see  the  passing  tide  bearing  everything  floatable  by. 

First  of  all,  a  new  investigator  with  fresh  and  leading 
powers,  is  intensely  alive  to  the  spirit  and  trend  of  his 


INTRODUCTORY.  S5 

age.  He  feels  that  progress  is  along  its  line.  «  He  longs 
to  be  its  exponent  and  to  introduce  its  peculiar  principles 
and  strength  into  his  own  special  department.  He  may- 
aim  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  procession  in  his  own  times. 
Whatever  happens  to  be  the  advanced  thought  of  the 
day,  attracts  some  minds  simply  on  that  account. 

In  the  second  place  the  new  theory  appeals  to  the  he- 
roic instinct  of  youth.  Young  men  love  fight,  and  daring 
deeds.  There  is  a  feeling  of  dash  and  liberty  in  cutting 
away  from  the  old,  in  bursting  the  fetters  of  tradition,  in 
hewing  one's  way  with  a  sabre  through  a  perilous  path, 
and  burning  the  bridge  behind.  Cheyne  in  his  "Founders 
of  Old  Testament  Criticism,"  ^  quotes  an  instance 
just  in  point  in  reference  to  Vatke  :  "Courageously  he 
made  a  way  for  himself  through  untrodden  fields,  and 
his  pioneering  boldness  counted  for  much  in  the  attrac- 
tion which  he  exercised  upon  the  academic  youth  " 

In  the  third  place,  the  freshness  of  the  new  field,  the 
room  for  original  research,  the  many  discoveries  to  be 
made,  the  rich  mines  of  material  untouched  and  still  to 
be  worked  out,  the  endless  puzzles  to  be  solved,  the  pros- 
pects of  startling  results,  are  very  tempting  in  compari- 
son with  the  tedious  prospect  of  mining  in  the  old  quar- 
ries and  finding  here  a  little  and  there  a  little. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  possibility  of  being  original, 
and  of  being  looked  up  to  as  the  founder  of  a  new  school 
and  the  developer  of  a  new  trend  of  thought,  especially 

8   This  is  particularly  true  to-day, 

s    '-Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism,"  page  134. 


26  INtRODUCTOKY. 

if  It  be  in  accord  with  the  direction  of  the  general  men- 
tal activity  of  the  age,  is  an  evident,  if  not  a  conscious 
motive  in  all  departments  of  professional  scholarship. 

In  the  fifth  place,  the  same  literary  and  critical  and 
creative  faculties  of  the  reason  that  urged  on  the  founders 
of  the  negative  criticism,  serve  as  a  temptation  to  the 
younger  thinkers.  The  new  theory  offers  wide  scope  for 
both  the  destructive  and  the  constructive  powers  of  the 
intellect.  The  biblical  literature  is  wonderfully  rich  in 
its  human  aspects,  and  if  these  may  be  invaded  and  inves- 
tigated and  recombined,  all  the  architectural  and  crea- 
tive faculties  are  givea  a  play  which  is  otherwise  denied 
them. 

In  the  sixth  place,  the  negative  criticism  by  lowering 
this  literature  to  the  level  of  other  religious  literatures,  and 
eliminating  the  miraculous,  seems  to  bring  all  intellect- 
ual development  into  one  single  series,  and  to  harmonize 
all  existence  into  unity.  It  enables  one  to  conceive  a 
complete  scheme  of  existence  through  the  operation  of  a 
single  universal  principle.  It  brings  the  Bible  under  the 
principle  of  evolutionary  development.  Yet  here  we  need 
to  remember  the  very  latest  teaching  of  science,  namely 
that  Nature  herself  will  not  reduce  to  a  unit  or  a  unity. 
"The  occurrence  of  the  exceptional  is  now  more  clear 
to  naturalists  than  it  was  a  century  ago.  Even  in  the 
matter  of  miracles  it  seems  not  improbable  that  science 
is  likely  to  come  nearer  to  religion  than  in  the  earlier  days 
of  that  learning." 

The  chief  strength  of  the  negative  criticism  has  been 


INTRODUCTOKY.  27 

that  it  brought  the  Biblical  writings  into  harmony  with 
the  idea  of  a  continuity  of  natural   causation,    with  an 
orderly  succession  of  events  in  which  sudden  transitions 
and  interventions  are  excluded.)   It  reduced   the    per- 
plexing and  exceptional   Word  of  God  to  accord  with 
the    modern  philosophical    conception    of   the   world. 
But  the  newest  science  now  points  out  the  insufficiency 
of  this  modern  conception  even  in  respect  to  purely  physi- 
cal phenomena,  and  the  necessity  of  its  limitation.     Thus 
the  Professor  of  Geology  in  Harvard  University  in  his 
latest  work  i «  takes  the  decided  ground  that  although  this 
conception  as  applied  to  matter  and  energy  is  vast  and 
informing,  yet  it  does  not  of  itself  alone  enable  us  to  ex- 
plain the  occurrences  in  the  universe.     "It  appears  that 
we  have  to  be  on  our  guard  lest  we  extend  our  notions  of 
continuity  in  the  natural  world  beyond  the  point  where 
the  evidence  justifies  it.     The  notion  is  so  overwhelming 
in  its  magnitude  that  we  cannot  adopt  it  without  danger 
of  extending  it  far  beyond  the  limits  of  proof."     For 
this  world  is  a  "place   of  surprises  which  take  place 
under  natural  law,  but  are  quite  as  revolutionary  as  if 
they  were  the  products  of  chance,  or  a  result  arising  from 
the  immediate  intervention  of  the  Supreme  Power."    He 
sums  up  the  matter  thus  : 

"Speaking  from  my  own  experience  alone,  I  may  say 
in  conclusion  that  by  dwelling  on  these  considerations ^^ 

10  ''The  Interpretation  of  Nature,"by  N.  S.  Shaler,  Houghton, 
Mifflin  and  Co.,  1893. 
»ii  The  critical  points  in  the  continuity  of  natural  phenomenft. 


28  INTRODUCTORY. 

we  may  attain  to  a  view  cjiicerniiig  the  course  of  nature 
which  differs  widely  from  that  which  seems  to  be  held  by 
most  naturalists.  We  see  that  this  world,  though  mov- 
ing onward  in  its  path  of  change  under  conditions  which 
are  determined  by  the  persistence  of  energy  and  of  mat- 
ter, is  subject  to  endless  revolutionary  changes.  These 
crises  seem  to  be  arranged  in  a  certain  large  and  orderly 
way.  The  minor  of  them  occur  with  infiuice  frequency, 
appearing  in  every  combination  of  matter,  the  greater 
happen  but  rarely,  the  greatest  only  from  age  to  age. 
For  my  own  part  I  find  this  rational  introduction  of  the 
unexpected  and  the  unforeseeable  into  the  conception 
of  nature  more  satisfying  than  the  purely  mechanical 
view  which  is  so  commonly  held  by  my  brethren  in 
science." 

From  these  considerations  we  may  perhaps  conclude 
with  confidence  on  the  one  hand  that  even  presumptively, 
and  far  more  than  is  actually  the  case,  we  would  expect 
to  find  the  leading  and  most  vigorous  critics  of  the  age 
on  the  negative  side,  entirely  apart  from  the  real  merits 
of  the  question ;  and  that  on  the  other  hand  there  are 
indications  that  the  present  spirit  of  the  age,  with  which 
the  negative  criticism  probably  stands  or  falls,  will  it- 
self be  out  of  date,  giving  way  to  something  else  in  the 
future  ;  and  that  in  all  probability  neither  nature  nor  sci- 
ence will  permanently  uphold  the  purely  naturalistic 
view  of  life,  or  thought,  which  now  obtains. 

Therefore,  untroubled  by  the  weight  of  adverse  schol- 
arship, and  undisturbed  by  any  present  day  popularity 


/ 

29 


INTRODUCTORY. 

that  the  negative  criticism  may  possess,  we  can  with 
good  courage  proceed  to  an  examination  of  the  latter  on 
its  own  intrinsic  merits. 

A  T  the  very  beginning  of  our  argument,    we  notice  a 
A    serious  point  in  general  against  the  negative 
criticism.    It  is  that  the  evidence  on  which  the  whole 
theory  rests,    and  on  which  it  depends  for   proof,   is 
almost    entirely  internal  and  circumstantial.     Circum- 
stantial evidence  as  a  rule  is  exceedingly   captivatmg  in 
its  plausibility,  and  striking  to  the  human   imagination, 
but  a  long  experience  has  taught  the  judicial  tribunals 
of  the  race,  that  circumstantial  evidence  is  an  unsafe 
thin-  by  which  to  effect  a  proof.     It  is   a   valuable  and 
clinrhiog  confirmation  of  positive  proof.     In  the  absence 
of  the  latter,  it  is  not   entirely  safe  and  trustworthy. 
There  is  especial  need  for  caution  when  it  is  adduced  to 
overthrowbeliefs  that  have  been  generally  held  by  hu- 
manity for  ages  and  ages.  The  presumption  and  the  prob- 
ability  are  against  it.     And  the  reason  is  plain  to  see.  It 
is  possible  to  secure,  especially  in  the  realm  of  history 
where  facts  are  multitudinous,    striking  circumstantial 
evidence  for  almost  any  theory  one  may  venture  tobroach 
Thus,  for  example,  when  Mr.  Buckle  wrote  his  history  of 
civilization  on  the  theory  that  individuals  have  no  influ- 
ence in  moulding  the  course  of  affairs,  he  was  able  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  his  theory,  to  accumulate  an  aston- 
ishing number  of  interesting  facts,  and  he  arranged  them 
with°an  ingenuity  in  every  way  admirable.      Bat,  .ays.a 


30  INTRODUCTORY. 

historian,  "though  he  had  done  what  he  could  to  fortify 
and  render  impregnable  the  position  he  had  taken,  the 
failure  of  his  argument  will  be  patent  to  those  who  are 
able  to  clear  their  minds  from  the  bewilderment  caused 
by  the  author's  multitudinous  citations." 

So  the  negative  criticism  with  admirable  imaginative 
faculty  and  with  analytic  ability  has  arranged  an  ap- 
parently simple  and  lucid  plan  for  clearing  up  the  diffi- 
culties out  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  has  supported  it 
with  some  striking  features  of  internal  evidence.  But  it 
has  not  sufficiently — or  rather  not  atall— realized  the  un- 
certainties of  such  historical  evidence  as  it  offers.  Nor 
does  it  appear  to  be  cognizant  of  the  dangers  of  drawing 
inferences  at  a  distance  of  dozen  of  centuries  from  the 
actual  events. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  learning  the  exact  truth 
at  very  short  range  are  often  quite  insurmountable.  Still 
more  inaccessible  is  the  truth  in  respect  to  events  remote 
in  point  of  distance  or  in  point  of  time.  Some  unknown 
condition  or  unseen  state  ot  affairs  may  entirely  upset  a 
view  that  seems  thoroughly  logical  and  plausible.  There 
is  force  in  the  tale  told  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  that  after 
viewing  a  brawl  with  his  own  eyes  beneath  his  prison 
window;  and  finding  to  his  surprise  that  he  had  misap- 
prehended the  whole  affair,  he  threw  the  unpublished 
part  of  his  history  into  the  fire,  saying,  "If  I  could  not 
understand  what  passed  under  my  own  eyes,  of  what 
use  is  it  to  attempt  to  tell  the  truth  about  what  took 
place  hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  ago?" 


INTRODUCTORY.  31 

There  is  a  very  fine  illustration  of  the  insecurity  of  re- 
lying upon  internal  evidence  and  plausible  circumstance, 
and  of  the  mistaken  confidence  of  higher  critics  in  their 
results  ;  in  the  parallel  field  of  classical  literature.     The 
case  is  parallel  in  methods,  use  of  evidence,  and  results, 
to  the  whole  movement  of  the  higher  criticism  in  Biblical 
fields     It  is  the  effort  to  prove  that  the  two  great  poems 
of  Greece,  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  were  not  written 
by  Homer,   but  were  originally  a  set  of  popular  lays, 
which  were  subsequently  dovetailed  by  men  of  a  much 
later  period,  into  epics,  amidst  a  mass  of  additions  and 
interpolations  ;  while  Homer  himself  was  only  a  mythi- 
cal personage.     The  only  external  evidence  for  the  theory 
is  an  obscure  tradition  in  out  of  the  way  corners  of  Greek 
literature  that  the  poems  had  been  -  scattered  "  and  that 
by  someone  they  were  gathered  up  and  put  together. 
Cicero,  the  first  extant  writer,  who  mentions  the  matter, 
lived  five  centuries  after  the  supposed  event.     Still  later 
authors  tell  a  similar  tale,  and  all  seem  to  base  their 
statements  on  a  few  verses  of  an  epigram,  itself  late  and 
anonymous.     About  90  A.  D.,  Josephus  mentions,  as  a 
common  belief  the  idea  that  Homer  coidd  not  write,  and 
that  his  poems  were    long    handed   down  by  memory, 
-hence  the  discrepancies  in  them."     In  addition  to  this 
circumstantial   evidence,   there  is  nothing  but  what  is 
gotten  out   of  the  analysis  of  the  writings  themselves. 
Much  is  said  of    "ancient  lays,"  but  concerning  them 
we  know  nothing  whatever.     Much  is  stated  about  the 
.^Homerid^,"  but  they  are  a  mere  name.    There  is     no 


33  INTRODUCTORY. 

trace  of  such  organizations."  1*  Much  is  inferred  in  re- 
spect to  diaskeuasts  and  rhapsodists,  of  whose  labors 
(except  that  they  are  appealed  to  in  minutise  by  the  crit- 
ics of  Alexandria,  say  300  B.  C.)  we  have  no  knowledge 
at  all.  13 

Wolf,  the  leading  advocate  of  the  new  theory  was 
the  greatest  and  most  scholarly  editor,  from  the  text- 
ual point  of  view,  that  Homer  ever  had.  His  "Pro- 
legomena" to  the  Iliad,  written  in  1795  is  still  the  stand- 
ard in  that  line.  "Wolf  possessed  enormous  learning, 
great  conscientiousness  and  fairness  ;  moreover,  unlike 
most  Homeric  critics,  he  had  literary  taste.  But  between 
his  taste  as  a  man  of  letters  and  his  microscopic  studies 
as  a  critic,  he  failed  quite  to  make  up  his  mind.  Com- 
pared with  many  living  critics  of  the  cocksure  school. 
Wolf  may  almost  be  said  to  have  no  constructive  theory 
at  all.  He  admitted  that  when  he  read  Homer  for  pleas- 
ure, he  was  angry  with  his  own  doubts.  Now  Homer 
made  his  poems  merely  to  be  heard,  or  read,  for  pleasure, 
and  to  peer  into  his  work  as  if  we  were  examining  a 
clause  in  a  new  bill  or  a  new  treaty,  or  cross-examining 
a  witness  before  a  jury,  is  to  prove  our  own  incompe- 
tence. We  must  keep  his  object  in  view,  he  sang  for  hu- 
man enjoyment ;  and  we  must  keep  his  audience  in  view, 
he  sang  to  warriors  and  to  ladies.  Many  things  would 
pass  with  them,  nay,  would  delight  them,  which  a  prac- 
tised barrister  could  cause  to  appear  very  dubious  in  the 

izjebb. 

i3Like  the  Rabelaisian  chimera,  the  Higher  Criticism  is  bom- 
binans  in  vacuo,  "  buzzing  in  the  void.'  " 


INTRODTJCTOKY.  33 

eyes  of  a  jury.  Wolf  knew  and  felt  all  this  when  he 
studied  Homer  for  enjoyment  as  Homer  expected  to  be 
studied  ;  he  forgot  it  when  he  came  to  apply  his  critical 
microscope.  Moreover  since  the  death  of  Wolf  many 
discoveries  have  been  made,  a  chapter  of  lost  history  has 
been  recovered,  and  were  he  living  now  his  acute  and 
candid  mind  would  reverse  many  of  his  old  conclusions. 
Perhaps  we  might  say  that  Wolf  never  was  a  Wolfian. 
It  is  certain  that  he  would  be  a  Wolfian  no  longer." 

For  to-day  one  of  Wolfs  main  grounds,  namely  that 
Homer  could  not  have  known  how  to  write,  is  completely 
overthrown  by  several  sorts  of  evidence  to  which  we 
shall  refer  in  detail  later  on.  And  since  Wolf  died,  re- 
cent discoveries  have  thrown  a  light  for  which  we  never 
could  have  hoped.  The  grave  has  given  up  her  treasures. 
It  has  become  clear  that  Homer  described  a  real  but  hith- 
erto unknown  civilization,  of  which  true  relics  were 
found  at  Mycenae,  Tiryns,  Orchomenos,  and  Amyclse. 
The  objects  unearthed  correspond  to  and  verify  the  pic- 
tures and  art  in  the  Homeric  poems. 

How  instructive  this  effort  of  the  higher  criticism  in 
the  department  of  classical  literature  is  in  reference  to 
the  parallel  and  more  recent  effort  of  the  same  tendency  in 
the  fields  of  Biblical  literature,  need  not  be  pointed  out.  It 
all  goes  to  show  that  circumstantial  evidence  is  plausible 
but'not  to  be  trusted  ;  and  that  until  critical  research 
discovers  positive  external  evidence  to  the  effect  that 
the  positive  witnessing  of  the  biblical  record  to  its  own 
origin  is  not  true  ;  we  are  probably  safer  in  accepting 


84  INTRODUCTORY. 

these  witnessings  as  true,  even  though  we  cannot  ex- 
plain thenijthan  we  are  m  committing  our  confidence  to 
any  ingeniously  constructed  line  of  internal  evidence, 
however  plausible  the  latter  may  be  made  to  appear. 


-^'>^^^^:?<^< 


35 


The  Argument 

Against  the   Negative   Criticism  of 

the    Old    Testament    centering 

in  the  Post=Exilian  Hypothe= 

sis  of  the  Pentateuch. 


CHAPTER  I. 


A  LL  the  positive  evidence  of  the  Old  Testament 
^^  itself  is  against  the  new  theory.  All  the  posi- 
tive evidence  is  even  on  its  face  against  the  new  theory. 
The  testimony  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  meaning  it  nat- 
urally conveys,  attributes  the  authorship  to  Moses.  In 
Deuteronomy  i  we  read,  "Moses  wrote  this  law,"  and 
again  ^  '  'When  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the 
words  of  this  law  in  a  book  until  they  were  finished." 
The  book  of  Joshua  shows  that   "this  law"   means  not 

simply  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  but  the  whole  Penta- 
131:9.    2  31:24. 


36  CHAPTER  I.  EVIDENCE   OF 

teuch.  For  Joshua  states  ^  that  "this  book  of  the  law" 
contamed  "all  the  law  which  Moses  comma  nded;"  and 
the  commands  of  Moses,  guiding  Joshua,  were  not  mere- 
ly from  Deuteronomy,  but  were  from  Numbers,  *  from 
Genesis,  ^  from  Exodus  ^  and  from  Leviticus.* 

In  the  eighth  chapter  of  Nehemiah,  "the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel" 
was  to  be  read  to  the  people  at  the  feast  of  the  taberna- 
cles (verse  14  shows  that  Ezra  understood  that  Lev.  23, 
40-43  was  to  be  included)  ;  and  in  2  Kings,  22,  8,  it  was 
found  preserved  in  the  sanctuary. 

The  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  had 
commanded  to  Israel,  would  naturally  mean  the  whole 
Pentateuch.  The  very  least  it  could  mean,  would  be 
those  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are  expressly  said 
to  have  been  written  by  Moses.  Those  parts  are  Deuter- 
onomy 13-26,  Exodus  20-23,  Exodus  34  :  10-26.  Besides 
this,  all  the  laws  scattered  through  Exodus,  Leviticus 
and  Numbers,  are  expressly  declared  in  detail  to  have 
been  given  by  God  to  Moses,  and  by  him  delivered  to  the 
people.  The  occasion  upon  which  these  statutes  were 
severally  enacted,  the  circumstances  which  called  them 
forth,  and  facts  connected  with  their  actual   observance 

in  the  time  of  Moses,  are  in  many  cases  recorded  in  detail. 

3  1:8.7.    4  Comp.Josh.1,13  ff..  4.12,  22.  2ff.  w.    Num.32. 

5  Comp.  Josh.  5.  2  w.  Gen  17, 10. 

6  Comp.  Josh.  5.  10  w.  Ex.  12.  6,  and  Levit.  23,  5. 

7  "The  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,"  (See  Josh.  8:  31-34)  may 
have  been  more  compreliensive  than  "The  law  of  Moses,"  and 
may  have  been  the  same  as  'the  book"  referred  to  in  Ex.  '7: 14, 
andcontained  whatever  else  Moses  wrote  in  connection  with  the 
law.  This  is  conflrmed  by  the  fact  that  a  record  made  by  Joshua 
himself  was  written  in  "The  book  of  the  Law"  (Josh.  24:26). 


OLD   TESTAMEKf   ITSELF.  37 

The  argument  is  particularly  strong  in  the  case  of  Deu- 
teronomy, which  makes  numerous  and  distinct  claims  to 
Mosaic  authorship.     "Early  in  the  book    Moses   is  de- 
scribed as  declaring  the  law  that  follows,  and  appears  in 
the  first  person  as  the  narrator  of  the  providential  story. 
Toward  the   close  the   same  statement   is    reiterated.   ^ 
A  little  later  it  is  expressly  said  that  Moses  wrote  the 
foregoing  law  and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests,  and  unto 
all  the  elders  of  Israel,   ^  and  the  statement  is  repeated 
in  language  even  more  definite  and  precise.    Written  the 
words  were,  and  written  4n  a  book  ;'   ^ «  and  the  words 
that  were  written  embodied  the  covenant  which  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of  Israel 
at  the  close  of  their  long  wanderings  in  the  wilderness. 
And  then,  as  if  to  authenticate  all,  Moses  adds  his  sub- 
lime parting  psalm  ^  ^    and  concludes  with  his  benedic- 
tion on  the  tribes  that  were  then  about  to   enter  into  the 
long  promised  heritage." 

The  laws  of  the  Pentatench  thus  claim  to  have  been  all 
given  by  Moses  ;  those  of  three  separate  parts  are  ex- 
pressly stated  to  have  been  recorded  by  him  ;  and  a  large 
proportion  of  the  remainder,  show  by  their  very  struct- 
ure, that  their  present  written  form  dates  from  the  abode 
of  Israel  in  the  wilderness. 

BUT,  in  the  second  place,  and  entirely  apart  from  this 
evidence  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  later  books  as  to 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  Old  Testament,as  it 

8Deut.29,l.    9  31,9.    lo  31,24ff.    n  31,30. 


88  CHAPTER  I.  EVIDENCE   OP 

now  stands,  represents  that  there  was  in  Israel,  from  a 
very  early  period  a  growing  book  of  the  Law  of  Jeho- 
vah, which  was  kept  carefully  distinct  from  all  other  lit- 
erature, and  regarded  as  of  divine  authority  and  as  a  pe- 
culiar possession  of  Israel.  This  fact  if  true,  upholds 
the  claim  made  by  the  Pentateuch,  on  its  face. 

To  begin,  the  t  wo  tables  of  stone  are  represented  to 
have  been  in  God's  own  writing.  ^  Moses  also  represents 
that  God  gave  to  him  statutes  and  judgments  in  which  to 
instruct  the  people,  in  addition  to  what  God  himself 
wrote.  2  Iq  tiie  account  of  the  second  giving  of  the  ta- 
bles it  is  explained  that  God  wrote  the  tables,  but  Moses 
the  other  matters.  ^  What  Moses  wrote  is  here  said  to 
include  the  law  of  the  festivals,  etc.  * 

The  two  tables  were  placed  "in  the  ark,"  and  were 
still  there  in  Solomon's  temiDle.  ^  In  the  sanctuary,  be- 
fore the  ark,  were  preserved  the  national  memorials 
which  were  regarded  as  peculiarly  sacred.    ^ 

Long  before  Moses  received  the  tables,  and  a  yet  longer 
time  before  he  deposited  them  in  the  ark,  we  find  that 
Moses  had  charge  of  "the  book,"  and  wrote  in  it  by  di- 
vine command,  matters  concerning  Amalek,  now  appar- 
ently found  in  Exodus.  '^  It  seems  to  be  the  same  book 
in  which  Moses,  before  he  received  the  two  tablets,  wrote, 
"  and  took  the  book  of  the  covenant  and  read  in  the  ears 

of  the  people."   ^     Among  the  arrangements,  made  by 

1  Ex.  32: 15, 16 ;  Deut.  5 ;  22,  &  9,  10 ;  Ex.  31 :  18,  &  24, 12. 

2  Deut.  4, 13, 14.  3  Dent,  h),  1-5.  Ex.  34  1,  27,  28,  2D,  and  Deut. 
4,14.  4  Ex.  34,  23-27.  5  Daut.  10,  2-5.  1  Kiugs  8,  9.  2  Cliron.  5,  10. 
6  Ex.  40:  4.  5,  23,  25;  10,  32,  33,  34;  Num.  17:  4,  7,  10;  Heb.  9:  2-5  ; 
Ex. 25:16,21.     v  Ex.  17:  13,  14.      »  Ex. 24:4,7. 


Old   fESf AMENf   ITSELF.  3d 

Moses  for  closing  up  his  life-work,  ^  the  finished  book  in 
which  the  law  was  written  was  to  be  deposited  "beside 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah."  There  are  further 
notices  of  the  contents  of  this  book  in  the  Pentateuch. 

Josephus  speaks  with  special  reverence  of  the  books 
laid  up  in  the  temple,  and  he  mentions  the  Law  of  the 
Jews,  along  with  the  golden  candlestick  and  other  furni- 
ture of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  as  being  among  the  spoils  of 
Titus 

The  book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  whatever  it  may  have 
comprised,    was    handed    over    to    Joshua.  i«      Joshua 
counted  it  a  part  of  his  mission  to  add  something  to  this 
book.  11  This  must  have  been  "the  book,"  not  "a  book," 
in  which  Samuel   wrote    the  fundamental  law   of   the 
kingdom,  i  ^  just  as  Moses  had  written  in  it  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  theocracy.  The  aged  David  i^  charged 
Solomon  to  do  "as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses." 
David  14  made  the  arrangements  for  worship  and  sacrifice 
"according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  law  of  the  Lord 
which  he  commanded  Israel."     In  the  previous   verses 
David's  singers  are  represented  as  singing  a  song  which 
cites  from  Genesis  the  story  of  Abraham,Isaac  and  Jacob, 
and,  apparently,  that  of  creation.      A  longer  version  of 
this    song   of  David  is  found  in   four  other  psalms,  i^ 
There  the  allusions  cover  the  periods  mentioned  in  Joshua, 

9  Deut.  31:24.  25,  26.  -^     ^.   n"   t  o  »„a  t?v    9n-94  9*1 

10  Josh.  1,  7-8:  8:  30-35.     Comp.  Deut.  2i,  1-3,  and  Ex.  20.  ^,  ^. 

Josh.  23:6. 

11  Josh.  24:25,27. 
T2  1  Sam.  10,  25. 
T3  1  Kings  2,  3. 
T4  IChron.  16:40. 

T5  Psalm  136: 105, 106,  107. 


40  CHAPTER   I.  EVIDENCE   OE* 

Judges  and  I  Samuel.  ^  ^  In  Psalm  104  is  an  epitome  of 
the  account  of  the  creation  in  Genesis.  The  evidence 
from  the  Psalms  is  too  abundant  to  be  properly  intro- 
duced. 

This  evidence  does  not  lack  much  of  proving  that  Sol- 
omon inherited  a  Bible  brought  up  to  date  by  David, 
Samuel,  Nathan  and  Gad,  sharply  distinguished  by  them 
from  all  other  literature,  and  including  the  Mosaic  wri- 
tings, Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  a  collection  of  Psalms, 
and  probably  Ruth,  all  recognizable  by  the  matters  they 
contain. 

Later  on,  the  men  whom  Jehoshaphat  appointed  to  in- 
struct Judah  1'  had  "the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord" 
with  them.  In  2  Chron.,  20  :  21  there  is  probably  a  rec- 
ognition of  the  group  of  Psalms  mentioned  in  1  Chron., 
16,  and  therefore  of  the  historical  books  recognized  in 
those  Psalms.  In  the  same  book  ^  ^  the  words  of  David, 
Asaph,  Samuel,  etc.,  are  mentioned  as  authoritative  in 
the  midst  of  an  account  of  sacrifices  offereil  according  to 
the  Mosaic  laws.  In  Isaiah  ^^  terms  are  used  which 
seem  to  show  familiarity  with  the  idea  of  appeal  to  the 
written  canon  of  Scripture.  The  "book  of  the  Lord"  ^o 
can  hardly  be  anything  else  than  such  a  canonical  Bible. 
The  prophets  of  the  time  of  Isaiah  are  familiar  with  the 
idea  of  written  law  ^i.     They   are  also  familiar  with   a 

16  Ps.105:  34;  106:  34-40. 

17  2  Chron.  17:9. 

18  2  Chron.  29:  25,  30. 

19  Isa.  29,  18;  8,16,  20;  30,  8. 
2  0    Isa.  34, 16. 

2  1    Isa.8:16,  20;30,  8,  9.    nos.8:12. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ITSELF.  41 

definite  body  of  instruction,  known  as  the  law,  and  by 
other  definite  forms  of  expression.   ^  ^ 

It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  copy  of  the  Law  found 
in  Josiah's  time  was  the  only  one  then  known.  It  is  more 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  excitement  it  caused  arose 
from  its  being  Vie  original  copy  which  had  been  tempo- 
rarily lost  or  concealed.  ^3  Josiah's  canon  cannot  cer- 
tainly have  been  narrower  than  that  of  his  predecessors. 
His  written  Scripture  included  writings  by  David  and 
Solomon.  ^^  The  record  of  his  deeds  includes  a  refer- 
ence to  Samuel  the  prophet,  ^  s  and  to  matters  and  pre- 
dictions now  found  in  I  Kings.  '^  The  writers  after  the 
Captivity  ^'  are  perpetually  referring  to  the  "Scrip- 
tures," ''the  Law,"  "the  Prophets,"  the  writings  of  Da- 
vid, of  Jeremiah,  etc. 

Thus  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  now  stands,  gives  a 
clear  and  consistent  account  of  its  own  origin.  This 
body  of  literature  has  existed  in  its  present  shape  for  at 
least  twenty  centuries.  If  its  shape  is  abnormal,  we 
shall  be  apt  to  find  evidence  of  the  fact  in  its  testimony 
on  a  crucial  question  like  that  concerning  its  own  origin. 
If  the  witness  does  not  tell  the  truth  in  his  original 
statements,  he  will  probably  under  this  cross-examina- 
tion, have  contradicted  himself.     If  he  gives  a  consistent 

22  Mic.4:2.  Isa.  2:3;  30:9;  1:10;  5:24;  Hos.  4:6;  7: 1,12.  Am.  2:4. 

23  2  Kini,'S  22:  8,  10,  11,  16;  23:  2;  2  Chron.  Zi:  14-30;  35:  12. 

24  2  Chron.  35:  4,  15. 

25  2  Chron.  35:  18. 

26  2  Kings  23:  15-18,  27. 

27  Dan. 9:  2,  6,  10-15,  24;  10:21;  Neh.  8:  1-8;  9:  3-32 ;  10 :  29,  30 ; 

Ezra  3:  10,  11;  Zech.  7:  12.  etc. 


42  CHAPTER   I.  EVIDENCE   OF 

account,  then  his  testimony  must  be  either  accepted  or 
disproved.  The  evidence  is  remarkably  strong  and  con- 
sistent, and  proves,  at  the  very  least,  that  the  law  of 
Moses  and  certain  writings  of  David  and  Solomon  were 
accepted  as  authoritative  from  the  time  when  they  were 
written.  It  also  seems  to  show  that  there  was  a  law  of 
growth  in  the  canon  of  Scripture,  succcessive  portions 
being  kept  distinct  and  being  regarded  as  scriptural  from 
the  time  they  were  written. 

"1  "¥  7E  have  seen  that  from  two  diflterent  points  of  view, 
the  evidence  is  flatly  against  the  new  theory.  When 
we  come  to  a  third  point  of  view,  that  of  the  actual  con- 
tents ot  the  Pentateuch,  the  evidence  again  is  fairly 
against  the  new  theory.  The  Pentateuch  with  Joshua, 
is  very  varied  in  form  ^  and  matter.  It  consists  of  prose 
narrative,  with  a  number  of  poems  ^,  and  addresses,  ^ 
and  especially  a  large  body  of  legislation,  designed  for 
magistrates  and  all  classes  of  people  ;  including  a  codi- 
fied list  of  precepts  in  Exodus,  *  ' 'largely  in  the  apparent 
form  of  decisions  on  adjudicated  cases,  in  shape  to  be 
easily  memorized,  and  suited  to  practical  judicial  use  ;" 
and  '*a  more  extensive  collection  of  laws  in  Deuteronomy 
with  a  bulky  historico  -  homiletical  comment  upon 
them."  There  is  in  addition  a  still  larger  collection  of 
laws  scattered  through  the  different  books,  and  intended 
especially  for  the  priestly  class. 

1  The  argument  from  literary  form,  language  and  style  will 
be  treated  later  on.  2  Gen.  49;  Ex.  15;  Num.  23;  Dent.  32 
3  Deut.  1-4,  Josh.  23-24.    *  Ex.  21-23.  20.  34. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   ITSELF.  43 

•'This  legislation  consists  partly  in  records  of  prece- 
dents, partly  in  manuals  for  particular  services,  partly  in 
alleged  proclamations,  general  orders,  return  reports, and 
the  like.  While  certain  portions  of  it  are  carefully  ar- 
ranged in  order,  this  class  of  the  legislation  as  a  whole  ex- 
hibits no  trace  of  orderly  arrangement  or  of  codification. ' ' 

*'The  various  poems,  addresses,  laws,  heterogeneous 
as  they  are  in  themselves,  are  bound  together,  partly  by 
being  arranged  in  a  certain  order,  but  mainly  by  being 
imbedded  in  a  connecting  narrative.  The  narrative  it- 
self, moreover,  is  frequently  duplicated,  and  this  and 
other  phenomena  are  supposed  to  indicate  that  previously 
existing  narratives  have  been  incorporated  into  it." 

Nevertheless,  the  whole  Pentateuch,  together  with 
Joshua,  in  spite  of  this  variety  of  contents,  and  apart 
from  the  question  of  its  authorship,  is  evidently  and  con- 
fessedly a  single  work,  with  a  single  purpose.  And  con- 
servative scholars  feel  themselves  perfectly  able  to  show 
that  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  variety  of  contents  that 
would  prevent  Moses  from  being  their  author,  "in  the 
sense  of  being  responsible  for  the  literary  existence  of 
these  books  in  their  present  form,"  and  in  such  a  way  as 
one  would  naturally  expect  of  a  public  leader  ;  and  that 
there  are  many  things  to  compel  the  view.  He  may  have 
written  some  parts  personally,  some  parts  through  aman- 
uenses, other  parts  "by  directing  secretaries,  or  by  ac- 
cepting documents  prepared  to  hand.  He  may  have  taken 
other  parts  from  the  works  of  earlier  authors." 


44  CHAPTER   1.  EVIDENCE   01* 

The  objections  of  the  negative  criticism  to  these  views 
are  quite  weak.  It  says  for  instance  that  Moses  does 
not  speak  of  himself  ia  the  first  person,  but  that  some 
other  writer,  living  long  after,speaks  of  him  in  the  third. 
But  why  could  not  Moses  speak  of  himself  in  the  third 
person,  "just  as  Caesar  and  Josephus  do.  And  if  it  is 
another  writer  that  speaks  of  Moses  in  the  third  person, 
he  could  do  this  as  easily  while  Moses  was  living,  as  long 
after." 

It  says  again,  that  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah  * 
would  not  have  been  referred  to  by  Moses  himself,  as  it 
speaks  of  his  own  deeds.  "But  there  is  nothing  in  the 
fact  that  a  book  mentions  a  man's  deeds  to  prevent  that 
man's  citing  the  book." 

It  refers  to  the  passage  "There  arose  not  a  prophet 
since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses, "  ^  as  having  had  to  be  writ- 
ten ages  after  Moses.  But  in  fact  it  would  be  just  what 
any  old  man  one  generation  later  than  Moses,  who  in  his 
youth  had  known  Moses,  would  be  likely  to  say.  These 
are  really  representative  instances  of  the  objections 
brought  by  the  negative  criticism  against  the  Mosaic  au- 
thorship. Of  all  the  several  hundred  instances  that  can 
be  brought  to  bear  on  the  question  by  the  negative  criti- 
cism, there  is  not  a  single  one  of  them  which  necessarily 
points  to  a  later  date  than  the  generation  after  Joshua. 

Now  there  was  a  grandson  of  Aaron  and  a  grand- 
nephew  of  Moses,  Phinehas,  who  was  already  in  public 

5  Num.  21:  14. 

6  Deut.34:10 


OLD    TESTAMENT   ITSELF.  45 

life,  and  among  the  most  prominent  men  of  the  nation 
before  the  death  of  Moses.  '  Next  to  Joshua  himself  he 
was  the  chief  public  man  in  Israel  in  the  times  of  the 
conquest.  He  was  still  high-priest  in  the  time  of  the 
civil  war  with  B^^.njamin,  which  war  occurred  early  in 
the  times  of  the  Judges.  Still  more  significantly  Phin- 
ehas  is  known  to  have  been  the  successor  of  his  father, 
Eleazar,  in  the  high-priesthood.  "In  this  position  he 
was  the  chief  of  the  men  to  whom  the  custody  of  Moses' 
book  of  the  law  had  been  committed.  If  anything  was 
done  to  the  sacred  writings  of  Moses  and  Joshua  under 
his  direction,  it  was  done  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and 
Joshua,  within  the  lifetime  of  their  personal  associates. 
With  these  facts  in  mind,  notice  that  the  closing  verses 
of  the  Book  of  Joshua  bring  the  history  up  to  the  time 
of  the  death  of  Eleazar,  the  high-priest,  and  all  that 
generation,  that  is  up  to  the  time  when  Phinehas  of  the 
next  generation  was  already  an  old  man."  And  the  point 
is, that  just  here  all  contemporary  references  cease.  There 
is  no  unmistakable  allusion  to  any  event  later  than  the 
time  of  Phinehas  in  these   writings. 

When  we  remember  how  apt  historians  are  to  bring  in 
later  historical  allusions,  and  to  reflect  on  events  in  the 
light  of  their  own  age,  as  for  instance  in  Genesis  when  a 
thing  is  said  to  exist  "unto  this  day,  "or  in  Exodus  where 
to  the  first  giving  of  the  manna,  a  fact  belonging  to  the 
ceasing  of  the  manna,  forty  years  later,  is  added  ;  the 
force  of  the  conclusion  becomes  very  strong,  that  the  life- 

7  Num.  25 :  7, 11 ;  Ps.  106 :  30  Num.  31 :  6. 


46  CHAPTER  II.  EVIDENCE   OP 

time  of  Phinehas  marks  the  date  of  the  completing  of  the 
writings  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua.  This  theory- 
seems  to  thoroughly  explain  the  Pentateuch,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  its  contents,  as  a  Mosaic  writing.  That 
earlier  and  later  names  of  a  place  are  mentioned,  for  in- 
stance, only  shows  what  the  experience  of  every  one  will 
verify — how  the  old  name  of  a  place  clings  to  it  long  after 
a  new  one  is  adopted.  The  fact  that  Moses,  speaking  of 
the  kings  of  Edom,  says  that  they  reigned  before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel,  only  shows 
that  Moses  still  had  in  mind  a  promise  which  Jehovah 
had  made  to  Abraham,  namely  that  a  line  of  kings  was 
to  come  from  his  and  Jacob's  loins.  Edom  (Esau)  be- 
ing the  elder  brother  of  Israel  (Jacob)  ,  it  was  very  nat- 
ural that  Moses  should  mention  the  circumstance  that 
there  were  as  yet  no  kings  in  Israel,  though  the  Edom- 
ites  had  already  had  kings  for  some  generations. 

Thus  these  apparent  exceptions  of  which   many    more 
might  be  cited,  in  the  light  of  the   doubly   strong    posi- 
tive evidence  already  produced,  become  additional   cir- 
cumstantial confirmations  of  its  force. 

And,  finally,  as  over  against  all  this  positive  evidence  to 
the  effect  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  prime  of  Israel,  there  is  not  one  single 
word  of  positive  evidence  in  the  whole  Old  Testament  to 
the  effect  that  it  was  written  hundreds  of  years  later,  in 
the  days  of  the  exile. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  47 


CHAPTER  II. 

A  LL  the  positive  evidence  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment  is  against  the  negative  theory.  Christ 
and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  uniformly  attach 
the  name  of  Moses  to  the  Pentateuch  :  'Moses  said,' 
'Moses  wrote,'  'Moses  taught,'  'the  law  of  Moses.'  If 
we  take  from  the  Pentateuch  the  name  of  Moses,  we 
most  probably  take  from  it  the  indorsement  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles. 

John  tells  us  that  "the  law"  came  by  Moses.  And  in 
so  saying  he  meant  both  the  moral  and  the  ceremonial 
law.  Christ  uniformly  spealcs  of  Moses  as  the  giver  of 
the  law.  He  says  :  "Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law, 
and  yet  none  of  you  doeth  the  law?"  ^  And  again  he 
causes  Abraham  to  say  to  Dives  :  "They  have  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  let  them  hear  them,"  ^  where  "Moses"  evi- 
dently stands  for  the  Pentateuch,  and  precedes  the  proph- 
ets. And  still  more  pointedly  he  says;  "Had  ye  be- 
lieved Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me  ;  for  he  wrote 
of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye 
believe  my  words,"  ^  All  negative  critics  agree  that 
none  of  Deuteronomy  was  written  by  Moses,  but  comes 
from  the  time  of  Josiah.     Yet  here  Christ  says  directly 

1    John  7:19.     2  Luke  16:29.    3     John  5:44-47. 


48  CHAPTER   II.  EVIDEl^CE   OP 

the  contrary,  referring  to  the  striking  passage  in  which 
Moses  prophesied  that  He  should  come.  He  says  plainly 
of  Moses.  "He  wrote  of  me."  When  he  says  :  "On  these 
two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  p-ophets,"  * 
he  quotes  the  commandments  from  the  bojk  of  Deu- 
teronomy. If  they  were  merely  a  part  of  what  came  to 
light  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  he  could  probably  not  morally 
have  used  them  in  the  solemn  manner  he  does. 

Similarly  each  of  his  three  answers  to  Satan,  prefaced 
by  "It  is  written"  is  taken  from  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy. When  the  Pharisees  come  to  him  and  ask 
him  about  their  right  to  divorce,  he  replies  :  "What  did 
Moses  command  you  ?"  referring  to  Deuteronomy  24:1, 
and  implying  that  this  book  was  really  written  by  Moses . 
When  Christ  healed  an  impotent  man  at  tho  pool  of  Be- 
thesda,  in  a  passage  of  a  distinctly  critical  character  ^ 
he  not  only  endorses  the  reality  of  patriarchal  history, 
but  in  referring  to  Moses,  and  by  inference  to  the  Book 
of  Leviticus,  in  which  circumcission  is  ordained,  he  con 
nects  the  personal  lawgiver  with  a  passage  in  a  particu- 
lar book,  for  here  the  term  "Moses"  is  not  synonymous 
with  the  Mosaic  law.   ^ 

Again  when  a  leper  came  to  Jesus,  '  he  told  the  leper 
"Show  thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  that  Moses 
commanded,"  referring  to  the  law  in  Leviticus  14:  3,  4, 10. 
He  tells  the  multitude  that  the  scribes  and  pharisees  sit 
in  "Moses  seat,"  thus  making  Moses  and  not  Ezra  to 
have  been  the  founder  and  head  of  the  teachers  and  law- 

4  Matt.22:40.    »  John  7:22-23.    6  Ellicott.    7  Matt.  8:4. 


NEW   TESTAMENT 


49 


givers.  In  the  dispute  with  the  Sadducees  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  resurrection  of  the  seven  wives,  when  they 
quote  Moses  as  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  he  in  turn 
quotes  Moses  as  the  author  of  Exodus,  saying  :  «  ''Have 
ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God 
spake  unto  hira,  saying  :  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ?"  " 

And  the  risen  Lord,  we  are  told  by  Luke,  ^^  ''Begin- 
ning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets  expoundel  unto  them 
in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself  "  And 
after  the  meal  he  says  that  he  had  told  them  while  he 
was  yet  with  them  that  ^^  "All  things  must  be  fulfilled, 
which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  proph- 
ets, and  in  the  psalms  concerning  me." 

That  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  distinctly 
stated  that  even  the  Levitical  law  was  from  Moses,  we 
see  from  Luke  2:22,  where  Luke  refers  to  the  book  of  Le- 
viticus. 1  *  "And  when  the  days  of  her  purification  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  Moses  were  accomplished."  And 
Philip,  the  apostle,  declares,  "We  have  found  him  of 
whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write."  ^  ^ 
So  Paul,  learned  in  the  Old  Testament,  says,  i*  "For  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  'Thou   shalt  not  muzzle 

8  Mark  12:26. 

9  If  Christ  had  regarded  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  as  mythi- 
cal characters,  he  could  not  have  added  this  comment  on  the  pas- 
sage :  "He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living:'' 

10  Luke  24:27. 

11  Luke  24:44. 

12  12:2-6. 

13  John  1:45. 

14  1  Cor.  9,  9. 


50  CHAPTER  III.  EVIDENCE   OF 

the  mouth  of  the  ox,'  referring  to  a  passage  in  Deu- 
teronomy. T5  If  this  New  Testament  testimony  were 
not  so  emphatic,  ^e  and  specific,  and  uniform,  even  from 
a  critical  point  of  view,  and  so  abundant  as  to  have  more 
than  settled  the  authorship  of  any  other  book  in  the 
world,  T'^  one  might  be  disposed  to  consider  it  as  perhaps 
possible  that  the  expressions  are  only  conventional.  But 
the  nature  of  the  testimony  renders  such  a  view  impossi- 
ble. 

15  25:4. 

16  See  also  Chapter  XVIII. 

1 7  Consider  how  much  better  Christ  and  even  the  scholars  of 

his  age  were  fitted  to  decide  on  the  facts  than  we  are  and  how 
convenient  and  necessary  it  would  have  been  for  Paul  to  have 

used  the  negative  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  ceremonial  law  in 

his  life-and-death  contests  with  narrow,  legal-minded  Jews,  and 

Jewish  Christians,  if  it  had  had  any  foundation  in  fact  ! 


JEWISH    AND   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH  51 


T 


CHAPTER   III, 

HE  evidence  of    ancient   Jewish    and   Christian 
History  is  against  the  negative  theory. 

Though  Jewish  scholars  in  the  century  before  and  af- 
ter Christ  may  have  differed  as  to  whether  certain  books 
had  actually  been  included  in  the  contents  of  the  Old 
Testament,  they  all  held  that  the  Old  Testament  had,  in 
their  own  day,  been  complete  for  nearly  three  centuries 
at  least,  and  probably  for  a  much  longer  time.  It  was 
the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Jewish  nation  that  Mala- 
chi,  who  prophesied  under  the  first  Artaxerxes,  was  the 
last  prophet,  and  that  with  him  both  the  spirit  of  proph- 
ecy and  also  the  spirit  of  holy  inspiration  needed  to  com- 
pose holy  writings  had  disappeared.  The  Jewish  le- 
gends in  the  fourth  Book  of  Esdras  i  add  testimony  to 
this  tradition. 

At  the  time  when  Ecclesiasticus  was  written,  there 
must  already  have  been  a  sharp  distinction  between  the 
completed  canon  and  later  literature.  For  this  book,  in 
spite  of  its  claims  to  prophetical  and  canonical  impor- 
tance, and  in  spite  of  its  popularity  with  the  Palestin- 
ian Jews,  was  not  received  into  the  canon.  The  latter 
must  have  already  been  completed,  and  must  have  dis- 
tinguished between  holy  and  later  profane  writings,  so 

I  Chap.  14;  and  »lso,  in  the  church  Father  Irenaeus. 


52  CHAPTER  III.  EVIDENCE   OF 

that  no  one  ventured  to  add  to  it.  And,  in  addition,  Eccle- 
siasticus  itself,  both  in  the  prologue  and  in  chapters  for- 
ty-four and  forty-five,  clearly  refers   to  the   Old   Testa- 
ment as  such,  in  its  three  parts,  and  involves  the  fact  of 
its  previous  completion. 

All  parties  of  tlie  Jews,  in  reality,  acknowledged  the 
canonical  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  was  so 
firmly  fixed  that  neither  the  claims  of  Ecclesiasticus  or 
any  other  later  composition  availed  to  admit  them  into 
the  canon  ;  nor  did  the  Talmudic  discussions  concerning 
the  holiness  of  particular  books  in  the  least  change  the 
settled  condition  of  the  canon. 

Josephus  expressed  the  judgment  ^  that  all  the  books 
which  properly  belonged  to  the  Old  Testament  were 
written  before  the  death  of  the  prcphets  who  were  con- 
temporaneous with  the  first  Artaxerxes,  that  is  before 
424  B.  C.  The  Mishna  says  several  times  that  Ecclesi- 
asticus and  all  the  books  written  after  it  are  not  canoni- 
cal.  So  it  was  held  that  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  older  than  Ecclesiasticus,  which  claims  to  have 
been  written  by  the  grandfather  of  a  man  who  lived  at 
least  as  early  as  130  years  before  Christ. 

Just  here  we  meet  a  specimen  of  the  forced  reasoning 
resorted  to  by  the  negative  criticism,  to  which  more  ex- 
tensive reference  will  yet  be  made.  There  are  some  pas- 
sages in  the  Mishna  which  indicate  that  there  were  dis- 
putes among  the  Jews  as  to  the  canonicity  of  several 
books  such  as  Daniel  and    Ezekiel  and  Ecclesiastes,  and 

2  Contra  Aplon  LI.  C.  8. 


JEWISH  AND   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH  53 

the  negative  criticism  has  used  these  passages  to  prove 
the  late  date  of  some  of  the  parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  lateness  of  its  completion  as  a  whole.   But  these 
disputes  do  not  prove  that  at  all.     On  the  contrary  the 
weight  of  their  evidence  is  on  the  other  side.    "The  very- 
men  who  questioned  the  canoiiicity  of  Ecclesiastes   and 
Ezekiel   in  the  matter  of  the  propriety  of  their  contents, 
do  not  appear  to  have  at  all  doubted  the  matter  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  early  date    assigned  to   the  books. 
They   did  not  dispute  whether  the  books  were   in  the 
canon,  or  whether  they  had  been  admitted  at  a  very  late 
dale,  but  they  assumed  that  they  had  been  in  it  origi- 
nally, if  at  all,  and  what  they  questioned  was  the  pro- 
priety of  having  placed  them  there  originally.  ^     There 
»  "They  never  determined  a  book  to  be  canonical  in  the  sense 
of  introducing  it  into  the  canon.    In  every  instance  in   wliich  a 
writing  is  said  to  have  been  admitted  to  the  canon  the  writing 
had  already  been  in  existence  for  generations,  and  had  for  gen- 
erations been  claimed  as  canonical  before  the  discussions  arose 
in  regard  to  it.    In  every  instance  the  decision  is  not  that  the 
book  shall  now  be  received  to  the  collection  of  sacred  writings, 
but  that  the  evidence  shows  it  to  have  been  regarded  from  the 
first  as  part  of  that  collection.    If  the  decisions  of  early  schol- 
ars and  councils  here  have  any  validity,  they  are  valid  as  prov- 
ing that  the  books  which  they  recognized  as  scriptural  had  al- 
ways been  so  recognized  from  the  time  when  they  were  written. 
In  the  case  of  those  that  were  best  known  and  most  used  no 
great  difference  of  opinion  would  arise.    In  the  case  of  those 
that  were  less  familiar  it  became  necessary  every  few  genera- 
tions to  re-examine  the  evidence.    This  was  done  in  the  first 
centuries  as  it  has  been  done  in  the  last  centuries."    Prof.  W.  J. 
Bucher. 


54  CHAPTER  III.  EVIDENCE   OF 

are  scholars  to-day  yet  who  still  dispute  the  propriety  of 
recognizing  these  books  as  canonical.  But  does  that 
prove  that  these  scholars  believe  them  to  be  now  of  re- 
cent origin,  or  to  have  been  ouly  lately  recognized  as 
scriptural  ? 

Another  example  of  the  forced  historical  reasoning  of 
the  negative  criticism  is  its  conclusion  that  because  th.i 
Greek  Alexandrians  did  not  distinguish  between  the  can- 
onical and  the  apocryphal  writings  as  to  inspiration,  that 
therefore  the  distinction  was  not  founded  in  fact,  but 
was  only  a  subjective  parby  measure  of  the  Palestinian 
Jews. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  W(!  know  that  Josephus,  although 
he  used  the  Septuagiat  and  in  many  respects  favored  the 
Alexandrian  Jews,  yet  expressly  declares  that  all  books 
not  found  in  the  Hebrew  canon  are  uninspired  and  less 
worthy  of  credence;  and  Philo  and  all  the  Hellenistic 
Jews  clearly  show  that  they  knew  the  Hebrew  canon, 
with  its  three  divisions  very  well.  But  it  was  because 
of  a  different  dogmatic  principle  of  revelation,  namely 
that  this  principle  of  revelation  is  the  Logos  or  Wisdom 
who  worked  in  the  hearts  of  the  wise  and  pious  in  all 
generations,  both  early  and  late,  that  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  did  not  acknowledge  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
had  disappeared  in  400  B.  C,  and  that  they  obliterated 
the  distinction  between  the  older  prophetical  and  the 
later  non-inspired  literature.  It  was  here  again  not  a 
question  as  to  time,  or  dates,  or  facts,  but  it  was  a  mat- 
ter of  doctrinal  presupposition. 


JEWISH   AND   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH  55 

A  still  worse  example  of  misleading  argument,  is  the 
statement  that  the  number  of  books  in  the  canon  changed 
two  or  three  times  at  a  late  date.  While  this  may  be 
literally  true,  it  is  not  actually  so.  The  actual  fact  is 
that  only  the  ways  of  counting  the  books  changed,  not 
that  entirely  new  productions  were  every  now  and  then 
added  to  the  canon  at  a  late  date. 

From  the  very  beginning  the  Christian  church  used  the 
Old  Testament  writings  as  the  ones  which  testified  to 
Christ  and  were  fulfilled  in  him.  It  caused  them  to 
be  read  in  its  services  and  ascribed  final  and  divine  au- 
thority to  them  in  its  dogmatic  and  apologetical  discus- 
sions. At  first  the  Christians  were  only  able  to  read  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  Alexandrian  translation,  and  they 
regarded  the  apocryphal  books  as  canonical. until  Melito 
of  Sardis,  A.  D.,  172, and  Origin,  died  A.  D.  254, made  the 
church  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  canon. 
The  Greek  church  then  rejected  the  apocryphal  books, 
while  the  Latin  church  accepted  them,  but  in  neither  in- 
stance was  there  any  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  and 
date  of  the  Pentateuch  or  other  writings  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 


56  CHAPTER   IV.  EVIDENCE   OP 


CHAPTER   IV. 

'T^HE  evidence  of  the  Later  Historical  Books  of  the 
Old  Testament  does  not  warrant  the   conchision 

of  the  negative  theory. 

The  negative  theory  tries  to  prove  that  the  books  of 
Chronicles,  Nehemiah,  and  also  the  book  of  Daniel, were 
not  completed  until  long  after  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  It 
says,  for  instance,  that  the  genealogies  in  the  books  of 
Chronicles  and  Nehemiah  contain  the  names  of  persons 
who  were  not  living  until  long  after  the  time  when  the 
books  are  said  to  have  been  written.  But  the  i)resence 
of  these  names  in  the  lists  can  be  easily  explained. 

Take  the  most  extreme  case  of  the  sort,  tho  name  of 
Jaddua,  the  high  priest  in  Nehemiah  12:22.  "This  Jad- 
dua,  according  to  Josephus,  was  high  priest  when  Alex- 
ander conquered  Darius,  say  333  B.  C.  He  died  at  about 
the  time  of  the  death  of  Alexander,  B.  C.  324,  just  121 
years  after  Nehemiah  left  the  court  of  Artaxerxes  to  go 
to  Jerusalem.  Nehemiah  was  then  evidently  a  very 
young  man.  There  is  nothing  extravagant  in  the  idea 
that  the  pontificate  of  Jaddua  may  have  begun  during 
Nehemiah's  lifetime,  and  covered  the  remaining  fifty-six 
years  of  the  121.  Even,  therefore,  if  it  were  necessary 
to  assume  that  Jaddua 's  name  was  put  into  the  registra- 


LATEK  HISTORICAL   BOOKS.  57 

tion  after  he  became  high  priest,  there  would  still  be  no 
absurdity  in  holding  that  the  registration  was  made  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  Nehemiah.  ^ 

But  "it  is  not  necessary,  or  even  natural,  to  assume 
that  Jaddua  became  high  priest  ^  before  his  name  was  in- 
cluded in  the  registration.  If  only  he  was  born  before 
the  death  of  Neheraiah,  he  may  have  been  registered  in 
Nehemiah's  lifetime.  And  the  supposition  that  he  was 
thus  born  does  not  necessitate  the  conclusion  that  either 
he  or  Nehemiah  lived  to  a  greater  age  than  seventy-five 
years."  With  one  exception,  which  is  easily  explained, 
"on  the  view  just  given,  the  accounts  of  Josephus 
and  of  Nehemiah  fit  each  other,  and  each  proves  the 
other  to  be  exact.  It  is,  therefore,  not  a  mere  hypothe- 
sis, but  an  historical  fact,  that  the  genealogical  lists  in 
Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  close  within  the  limits  of  the 
lifetime  of  Nehemiah.  This  view  finds  some  further 
confirmation  in  the  passage  in  3  Mac,  1,  2-3." 

In  the  case  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  we  are  not  sure  that 
it  makes  any  difference  to   the  integrity  of  the  canon, 

1  Prof.  W.  J.  Beecher. 

■  2  The  proof  of  this  is  founded  in  Neh.  12:22-23.  There  is  in 
addition  to  tliis  an  independent  and  plausible  reason  why  he 
should  not  have  been  registered  before  his  accession.  Nehemiah 
lived  until  after  the  marriage  of  Manasseh,  brother  of  Jaddua, 
and  is  therefore  likely  to  have  been  for  some  time  the  contempo- 
rary of  Jaddua.  Now  if  Jaddua  was  enrolled  in  the  succession 
of  high  priests  before  he  actually  succeeded ;  and  if  this  was  an 
exceptional  thing,  then  the  official  naming  of  Jaddua  was,  in  ef- 
fect, the  official  exclusion  of  Manasseh. 


68  CHAPl"irlt   IV.  EVIDENCE   OF 

when  the  book  was  written,  or  whether  the  visions  look 
forward  or  backward.  It  was  peculiarly  grouped,  being 
placed  between  Esther  and  Ezra,  and  not  with  the  proph- 
ets. This  might  seem  to  indicate  a  late  date  for  the  book, 
for  if  it  had^been  known  earlier,  it  would  have  been  possi- 
ble to  have  placed  it  among  the  prophets.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  its  form,  its  historical  tendency,  and  other 
considerations,  may  have  caused  it  to  be  given  its  pecu- 
liar place  among  the  Uagiographa.  Like  Ezra,  it  is  writ- 
ten partly  in  Hebrew  and  partly  in  Aramaean. 

The  negative  criticism  assigns  its  authorship  to  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  175-164  B.  C.  It  does 
so  on  philological  grounds  like  the  following  :  "The 
book  does  not  have  sufficient  marks  of  a  Babylo- 
nian origin  ;  its  writer  has  blundered  in  the  use  of  proper 
names  ;  it  contains  nine  or  more  words  of  Persian  ori- 
gin ;  it  contains  three  or  four  Greek  names  of  musical 
instruments  ;  it  misapplies  the  term  "satrap."  To  these 
philological  reasons,  it  has  added  the  following  histori- 
cal ones:  Belshazzar  is  not  a  historical  personage  ;  Darius 
the  Mede  has  not  been  identified  ;  and  there  are  contra- 
dictions with  other  history  in  the  book.  The  ninth  chap- 
ter of  the  book  itself  points  to  a  late  date.  The  doctrine 
of  a  resurrection  and  of  angels,  and  the  fact  that  the  pre- 
dictive elements  are  apocalyptic  rather  than  strictly  pre- 
dictive, and  must  therefore  have  been  written  after 
the  event,  add,  it  is  maintained,  additional  force  to  the 
theory  of  a  late  origin. 

Each  of  these  reasons  admits  of  its  own  reply.     That 


LAfER  HISTORICAL  BOOKS.  59 

the  book  has  a  Babylonian  element  in  it  is  clear  to  all. 
Whether  this  is  sufficient  evidence  either  for  or  against 
either  view  of  the  book's  authorship,  is  a  question.  "Le- 
normant  and  other  scholars  have  made  it  clear  that  the 
author  of  the  first  six  chapters  must  have  known  much 
more  about  life  in  Babylon  than  could  easily  have  been 
learned  by  a  Jew  who  had  always  lived  in  Palestine.  If 
these  stories  were  finally  compiled  with  the  visions  of 
the  last  six  chapters  as  late  as  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  it  seems  to  me  clear  that  these  stories  were 
first  written  in  Babylon,  and  were  then  filled  with  the 
color  of  Babylonian  life,  and  retained  facts  in  Babylonian 
*history  not  elsewhere  recorded  until  discovered  under 
Babylonian  soil."  ^  This  second  is  a  roundabout  supposi- 
tion, to  displace  the  first  and  simple  one. 

That  the  writer  has  blundered  in  his  use  of  proper 
names  is  conjecture,  not  to  be  settled  in  the  present  state 
of  our  knowledge,  though  the  argument  for  it  tells 
rather  against  it. 

That  the  book  contains  Persian  words  is  not  against  its 
early  autliorship.  Any  man,  like  Daniel,  who  lived  much 
at  the  Babylonian  Court,  would  have  met  Persians  there  ; 
while  sucli  men  as  Ezekiel,  in  whose  book  no  Persian  is 
found,  did  not  mingle  in  court  life.  Then, there  are  Persian 
words  in  Ezra  and  Esther  as  well  as  in  Daniel,  and  the 
negative  theory  does  not  make  that  weigh  against  those 
books.  Still  further,  it  has  been  said  that  of  the  seven 
Persian  words  which  occur  in  the  Chaldee  of  Daniel,  only 

»  William  Hayes  Ward. 


60  CHAPTEB   IV.  EVIDENCE  OP 

one  is  found  in  the  Targums.  Therefore  the  book  seems 
to  belong  to  an  early  period  when  the  Persian  influence 
was  strong,  and  not  to  a  late  period  when  the  Persian 
words  had  been  mostly  dropped.  In  regard  to  the  Greek 
names  for  musical  instruments,  it  has  been  suggested 
that  if  they  are  a  criterion,  their  use  would  show  the 
book  to  be  as  old  as  Homer,  or  of  any  of  the  music-loving 
Greek  princes  from  Agamemnon  down.  In  regard  to  the 
term  "satrap,"  it  has  been  replied  that  if  to-day  "some 
Turkish  correspondent  of  an  American  newspaper  should 
apply  the  term  Bey  to  some  official  who  was  only  a  Pa- 
cha, this  use  of  terms  would  prove  him  to  be  a  contempo- 
rary of  the  author  of  Daniel."  In  regard  to  the  mythi- 
cal character  of  Belshazzar,  the  negative  theory  has  been 
put  to  shame.  "The  recovery  of  the  name  of  Belshazzar 
as  an  actual  ruler  over  Babylon  and  the  son  of  its  last 
king,  and  the  later  more  important  discovery  of  Cyrus' 
own  record  of  his  campaign  against  Babylon  and  his  fi- 
nal capture  of  the  city,  are  among  the  most  brilliant 
achievements  of  modem  historical  research,  and  give  to 
some  extent  confirmation  of  statements  greatly  ques- 
tioned in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  cast  still  more  light 
on  the  events  there  mentioned."  *  In  regard  to  the  con- 
tradictions in  the  book,  they  can  be  reconciled.  The 
limits  of  our  space  does  not  warrant  their  introduction 
and  discussion. 

In  regard  to  the  ninth  chapter,  it  just  as  easily  proves 
that  the  Jews  of  Daniel's  day  possessed  and  studied  col- 
*    William  Hayes  Ward. 


LATER   HISTORICAL   BOOKS.  61 

lections  of  the  prophetic  writings,  as  it  does  that  the 
book  of  Daniel  was  written  long  after  the  captivity. 
That  is,  it  proves  nothing.  As  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  and  of  angels,  Daniel  could  have  used  Per- 
sian sources  as  readily  as  a  later  writer.  Moreover  these 
doctrines  are  present  in  the  35th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  a 
writing  which  the  negative  criticism  places  at  an  earlier 
date. 

As  to  the  apocalyptic  nature  of  Daniel's  prophecy, 
while  the  subject  is  interesting,  the  argument  only  has 
weight  for  those  who  hold  to  the  impossibility  of  predic- 
tive prophecy.  ^  On  the  whole,  the  internal  evidence  for 
a  late  date  for  Daniel  is  not  strong. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  external  evidence  is  entirely  in 
favor  of  the  early  date.  All  the  evidence  we  have 
touched  on  in  Chapter  III,  goes  to  prove  that  Daniel  was 
in  existence  at  the  early  date.  Josephus  ^  expressly  testi- 
fies that  the  book  of  Daniel  was  shown  to  Alexander  the 
Great,  by  the  high  priest  .Taddua,  about  333  B.  C.  ;  and 
that  Alexander  was  g:reatly  influenced  by  the  predictions 
concerning  himself.  Then  the  book  of  Baruch  clearly 
presupposes  the  existence  of  Daniel.  In  Mac.  II.  56, 
Mattathias,  during  the  lifetime  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
is  represented  as  citing  Daniel  and  his  companions  along 
with  Abraham,  Caleb,  Elijah,  David,  and  the  other  an- 
cient worthies. 

5  See  Chapter  XVII. 

6  Antiquities  XI,  8,  5. 


63  CHAPTER  V.    THESE  BOOKS  NOT 


CHAPTER  V. 

'X'URNING  now  from  the  survey  of  testimony,  to  a 
survey  of  the  theory  itself,  we  notice  a  whole  se- 
ries of  things  rising  into  view  against  it.  It  is  against 
the  negative  theory  that  it  makes  all  Israelis  literature 
spring  from  the  period  of  the  nation's  decline  and 
fall.  It  leaves  the  basal  and  institutional  epochs  of  Israel's 
early  strength  without  a  literature.  It  leaves  the  balmy 
and  propitious  periods  of  her  maturer  prime  almost  with- 
out a  literature.  It  assigns  Israel's  grandest  writings  to 
the  age  of  Ezra,  and  places  nearly  all  her  productive 
powers  after  her  national  decay  and  deportation. 

This  is  against  nature.  It  was  not  the  case  with  the 
literatures  of  Egypt,  of  Assyria,  of  Rome,  of  Greece,  of 
Germany,  or  of  England.  The  rose  blooms  in  June. 
The  harvests  are  white  in  Summer.  No  land  has  ever 
garnered  its  grandest  flowers  and  richest  fruits  after  the 
overshadowing  destruction  of  the  autumnal  storms. 
The  greatest  periods  of  a  nation's  history  are  not  barren 
of  literary  effort.  It  is  against  the  law  of  natural  devel- 
opment that  the  best  and  almost  the  whole  literature  of 
Israel  should  be  a  product  of  the  period  of  her  deca- 
dence. 


FROM   AN  AGE   OF   DECLIKE.  63 

A  moment's  thought  is  needed  to  take  in  the  real  size 
and  difficulty  of  the  assumption  that  is  here  made.  We 
are  asked  to  believe  that  nearly  a  whole  literature,  the 
greater  part  of  the  literary  work  commonly  assigned  to 
Isiiah,  Jeremiah,  and  the  other  later  pre-exilic  prophets, 
and  substantially  all  that  is  assigned  to  the  earlier  men, 
Solomon,  David,  Nathan,  Samuel,  Joshua,  Moses,  was 
written,  not  by  these  men,  but  by  "unknown  scribes, 
obscure  men,  who  made  no  mark  on  their  own  genera- 
tion, and  left  no  name  to  the  generation  that   followed." 

If  it  were  only  the  texts  or  writings  of  a  single  prophet, 
or  school, or  generation,  or  of  several  of  them,  that  were 
thus  corrupted,  and  dissected  and  rendered  composite, 
or  pushed  forward  into  an  earlier  age,  the  assumption 
might  more  readily  carry  some  air  of  possibility,  but  **it 
is  difficult  to  believe  that  nearly  the  whole  of  a  nation's 
literature  is  marked  by  these  characteristics  ;  it  is  easier 
to  believe  that  almost  any  supposed  criteria  of  compos- 
ite structure  are  mistaken.  It  is  not  surprising  if  we 
find  that  some  great  man  did  not  perform  work  that  has 
been  commonly  attributed  to  him  ;  or  if  we  find  that 
some  obscure  man  has  done  great  work  ;  but  when  we 
are  called  upon  to  believe  that  throughout  a  nation's 
history  the  great  men  have  done  substantially  nothing, 
and  the  nobodies  have  done  everything,  that  is  beyond 
the  bounds  of  ordinary  credibility."  ' '  Views  like  these 
are  not  credible,  except  upon  strong  evidence." 

Beyond  a  doubt  the   exiles  weeping  by  the  waters  of 
Babylon  were  inspired  with  patriotic   feeling,  and  gave 


64  CHAPTEK  V.  DOES   NOT   SPRING 

heroic  expression  to  it  both  in  rebuilding  the  ruined  city 
and  in  thinking  over  the  songs  of  Zion.  Undoubtedly 
they  had  the  time  and  the  talent  and  the  calling  to  pro- 
duce a  literature.  But  all  the  scraps  of  knowledge  that 
we  possess  about  that  period,  when  ingeniously  jointed 
together  and  indefinitely  expanded  by  the  imagination 
of  the  historian,  cannot  possibly  form  a  background 
deep  and  vast  and  lofty  enough  for  the  literature  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

This  is  the  weakness  of  the  theory  as  far  as  the  post- 
exilian  period  is  concerned.  There  is  too  much  crowded 
into  it.  But  the  difiSculties  of  the  new  vie  ^  are  only  be- 
ginning. When  we  come  to  turn  our  eye  upon  the  many 
other  more  striking  periods  of  Israel's  history,  how 
shall  we  explain  their  emptiness  of  historic  record  and 
poetic  effort  ?  It  is  impossible  to  find  a  hypothesis  that 
will  account  for  their  barrenness. 

For  instance,  could  Moses,  trained  in  the  foremost  lit- 
erary nation  of  antiquity,  leading  the  greatest  and  most 
orderly  migration  of  which  history  tells,  looking  for- 
ward to  a  settled  and  larger  future  of  the  nation  in  a 
strange  land,  with  new  surroundings,  a  new  government, 
new  customs,  new  institutions,  have  left  only  some 
scanty  and  doubtful  fragments  of  legislation  ?  Are  the 
multitudinous  laws  set  into  similar  multitudinous  and 
seemingly  natural  details  of  history  purporting  to  have 
come  direct  from  Moses,  more  easily  explained  by  saying 
that  they  were  invented  and  elaborated  in  an  age  sepa- 
rated by  many  wide  centuries  from  the  time  of  their  al- 


FROM   AN   AGE   OF   DECLINE.  65 

leged  occurrence  ?  Such  records  of  the  Mosaic  period,  as 
we  have,  would  not  have  been  written  by  men  removed 
from  the  Exodus  by  as  great  a  period  as  that  which  sepa- 
rates us  from  the  discovery  of  this  continent  by  Colum- 
bus; or  as  that  which  separates  us  from  the  birth  of  Mar- 
tin Luther.  Still  less  could  they  have  been  recorded  as 
long  afterwards,  as  we  are  after  the  last  of  the  Crusades 
—ten  centuries  after  the  Exodus.  Such  a  vast  amount  of 
fabricated  legislation  and  re-written  history  could  not 
possibly  have  been  produced  at  such  a  long  distance  and 
in  such  a  period  as  that  of  the  era  of  the  exile  on  the 
one  hand  ;  and  on  the  other  hand  such  men  and  such 
institutions  as  are  found  in  the  early  days  of  Israel  would 
not  have  done  what  they  did  without  leaving  a  record. 

If  we  take  another  conspicuous  instance,  say  the  period 
of  the  Psalms,  the  case  for  the  new  theory  is,  if  any- 
thiug,  worse.  Late  eras,  like  that  of  Ezra,  are  rich  in 
science  and  schools.  Schools  and  schoolmen  produce 
annotations,  but  not  poetry.  It  is  against  nature,  and 
almost  miraculous,  that  the  best  religious  lyrics  of  all 
antiquity  should  also  be  written  in  an  age  of  national  de- 
cay, when  there  were  neither  great  men  to  write  nor 
great  events  to  evoke  such  lyrics.  Can  the  experience  of 
Israel  in  the  Persian,  Greek  and  even  the  Maccabeau 
periods  be  the  natural  and  sufficient  mother  of  such  a 
wonderful  progeny.  Truly  '  'the  great  post  Exilic  Jewish 
Church"  1  must  have  had  such  a  concentration  of  * 'great 

1    Clieyne. 


6b  CHAPTER   V,  THESE   BOOKS   NOT 

religious  ideas"  and  such  an  affluence  of  inspired  histori- 
cal and  poetic  genius,  all  of  it  humble   and   anonymous, 
as  the  world  has  not  seen  before  nor  since,  and  as  the  or- 
thodox view  has  not  claimed  for  any  of  the  more  promis 
ing  eras  of  historic  Israel. 

There  are  psalms  in  which  all  the  events  of  the  exo- 
dus, and  the  history  of  Israel  as  far  as  the  first  king,  are 
recorded.  These  are  the  themes  which  failed  to  stir  con- 
temporaries, but  which  waited  for  eight  or  nine  centuries 
further  on  to  stir  the  soul  of  a  singer  !  There  are  nu- 
merous psalms  in  which  royalty  plays  an  elevated  and 
prevailing  part.  These  are  the  psalms  which  were  writ- 
ten ages  after  the  kings  had  disappeared,  and  in  the  very 
centuries  when  it  is  supposed  that  the  Jews  were  inclined 
to  satirize  kings.  ^  But  ''from  the  halcyon  ages  of  David 
and  Solomon,  when  the  people  of  Israel  were  in  contact 
with  Egypt  and  Phoenicia,  when  their  maritime  expedi- 
tions brought  them  tidings  and  products  of  other  lands, 
no  authentic  composition  has  come,  no  record  of  religious 
opinions  or  customs  ;  except,  perhaps,  the  fragment  of  a 
psalm  or  at  most,  one  or  two  of  their  sacred  songs." 
The  real  ground  for  running  the  composition  of  the 
greatest  hymns  the  world  has  known,  of  different  and 
varied  ages,  into  one  late  and  comparatively  narrow  and 
prosaic  era  is  the  negative  theory's  necessity  of  consist- 
ently maintaining  the  dominating  idea  of  a  progressive 
evolutionary  religious  development  in  the  history  of  Is- 

2    They  "form  a  large  number  whose  date  would  be  irrevoca- 
bly fixed,  if  it  was  a  question  of  any  other  book  than  the  Bible." 


FKOM   AN   AGE    OF   DECLINE.  67 

rael.  '  But  the  necessity  is  equally  stringent  to  the  neg- 
ative critic,  of  maintaining  a  natural  literary  develop- 
ment. And  the  two  necessities  clash  in  the  case  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Therefore  the  principle  cannot  hold  in 
that  field. 

3  If  any  large  number  of  the  Psalms,  which  coctain  hun- 
dreds of  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch,  were  written  in  the  times 
of  David,  then  the  Pentateuch  was  written  still  earlier. 


68  CHAPTER  VI.  PRINCIPAL 


CHAPTER  VI. 

npHE  Principal  Argument  on  which  the  negative 
theory  relies  to  establish  this  post-exilian  au- 
thorship is  inconclusive.  It  reasons  thus  :  'because 
there  is  no  reference  to  a  thing  on  the  historical  record 
at  a  certain  period,  therefore  the  thing  did  not  exist  at 
that  period.  Because  the  ceremonial  law,  with  the  whole 
tabernacle  worship  and  the  great  festivals,  are  not  re- 
ferred to  in  the  writings  before  the  captivity,  therefore 
they  did  not  exist  before  the  captivity.  Israel  is  appar- 
ently ignorant  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  constantly  vio- 
lates it,  before  this  time.  The  sacrifices  are  offered  not 
in  the  tabernacle,  but  in  the  high  places,  through  the 
whole  of  Israel's  history.  There  seem  to  be  no  festivals 
at  all.  The  priests  and  ceremonies  are  very  different  and 
of  a  far  more  primitive  character  than  those  described  in 
the  elaborate  so-called  'Mosaic, '  but  in  reality  'post-ex- 
ilian' law.' 

This  argument  seems  strong.  But  it  is  both  inconclu- 
sive and  delusive.  In  the  first  place,  absence  of  refer- 
ence to  an  institution  does  not  necessarily  prove  non-exis- 
tence of  the  institution.  It  may  indicate  observance  so 
common  and  well  understood  as  not  to  be  in  need  of 


ARGUMENT   INCONCLtJSIVE.  69 

special  mention.  History  rarely  records  the  regular  ob- 
servance of  established  institutions.  It  is  taken  for 
granted.  When  there  is  mention  of  the  thing  made,  it 
is  likely  to  be  for  the  sake  of  drawing  attention  to  in- 
fractions and  irregularities.  This  principle  applies  with 
particular  force  to  the  very  field  before  us,  and  its  force 
is  recognized  by  the  new  theory  in  a  parallel  instance. 

The  new  theory  admits  that  the  Decalogue  is  as  old  as 
Moses  and  came  from  him.  But  nowhere  in  the  prophe- 
cies, and  scarcely  anywhere  in  the  histories,  is  there  any 
reference  to  the  Decalogue.  There  are  abundant  refer- 
ences to  statutes  which  have  been  transgressed  ;  but  the 
references  are  general,  and  might  be  understood  to  in- 
clude the  ceremonial  law  as  well  as  the  moral.  So  that 
the  argumentum  e  silentio  relied  on  by  the  new  theory  to 
prove  that  there  was  no  ceremonial  law  by  Moses,  would 
also  prove  that  there  was  no  decalogue  by  Moses,  and  so 
destroys  itself. 

It  is  very  true,  however,  that  absence  of  reference  raay 
indicate  non-observance,  just  as  readily  as  it  may  indicate 
common  observance.  But  non-observance  is  not  non-ex- 
istence. On  the  contrary,  non-observance  implies  exis- 
tence. It  is  possible,  in  the  first  place,  that  a  ceremonial 
law  may  exist,  and  that  the  times  may  be  too  unpropi- 
tious  for  its  observance.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  days  of 
the  Judges  were  bad  times  for  the  observance  of  the  cere- 
monial law  of  Moses.  The  Israelites  had  neglected  the 
divine  command  and  failed  to  drive  out  before  them  all 
the  inhabitants   of  Canaan.     The  Canaanites  had  their 


to  CHAPTER  VI.  PRINCIPAL 

strongholds  here  and.  there  throughout  the  land.  They 
and  the  Philistines  and  other  surrounding  peoples  man- 
aged to  keep  the  tribes  in  a  perpetual  worry.  Thelatt(  r 
needed  to  be  ever  on  the  watch  to  preserve  their  bounda- 
ries intact.  There  was  constant  suspicion,  uneasiness  and 
internal  warfare. 

Some  of  the  tribes  too  were  jealous  of  the  others,  and 
frequently  they  refused  to  co-operate  with  each  other  in 
battle,  and  each  tribe  had  to  fight  for  and  by  itself.  This 
prevented  them  from  consolidating,  as  they  should  have 
done,  into  a  united  people;  and  certainly  prevented  them, 
ai  a  nation,  from  keepiug  the  yearly  feasts  with  regu- 
larity. It  would  probably  have  the  additional  tendency 
to  thrust  the  systematic  teaching  of  the  law  into  the  back- 
ground. It  has  been  said  that  people  perpetually  en- 
gaged in  border  forays  are  likely  to  be  moulded  by  the 
rude  age  in  which  they  live,  and  to  become  neglectful  of 
religious  and  educational  duties,  and  also  to  underesti- 
mate the  value  of  any  institution  that  is  a  peace  measure 
and  does  not  turn  out  fighters  and  soldiers.  A  reason- 
able view  of  the  situation  will  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  non-observance  of  the  ceremonial  law  is  just  what 
might  be  expected  in  ages  such  as  these. 

In  the  second  place,  in  consequence  of  such  trying 
times,  the  people  may  sink  into  deep  ignorance,  as  well 
as  into  recklessness  and  carelessness  in  regard  to  the  ob- 
servance of  such  law.  What  an  illustration  of  this  fact 
was  that  wide-spread  religious  degeneracy  which  came 
over  our  country  after  the  close  of  the    Revolutionary 


ARGUMENT   INCONCLUSIVE.  tl 

War,  and  the  effects  of  which  were  felt  for  fully  half  a 
ceutury. 

And  even  in  our  own  advantageous  and  enlightened 
day,  there  are  many  people  who  are  almost  entirely  ig- 
norant of  their  own  civil  and  religious  law,  who  are  in 
uncertainty  as  to  the  proper  observance  of  religious  cus- 
toms and  seasons,  who  set  light  store  upon  such  observ- 
ance, or  who  are  utterly  careless  in  regard  to  it.  How 
difficult  it  is  even  in  our  time  of  comfort  and  civilization 
and  peace,  and  with  all  our  machinery  in  full  operation 
for  that  purpose,  to  educate  our  people  up  to  church  go- 
ing, to  Sunday  observance  and  Festival  observance.  And 
how  much  of  evtn  our  Christian  religion  is  still  a  matter 
of  obscurity,  and  is  intermingled  with  lower  supersti- 
tious heathenish  elements  on  the  part  of  the  lower 
classes  !  And  if  this  be  so  in  an  age  where  books  and 
papers  are  as  plentiful  as  grain  in  harvest,  and  where 
New  Testaments  can  be  bought  for  five  cents,  and  where 
Christ  is  preached  in  churches  every  few  blocks  apart, 
how  much  more  a  thousand  times  must  it  have  been  the 
case  in  the  age  of  which  we  are  speaking. 

A  third  case  in  which  non-observance  does  not  indicate 
non-existence,  is  when  the  people  know  the  law,  but  are 
set  against  it.  It  may  exist,  and  the  people  maybe  rebel- 
lious against  it.  It  is  not  an  unusual  thing  for  a  people  to 
disobey  its  own  laws.  This  is  especially  true  of  Israel. 
It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  they, — a  people  constantly 
denounced  by  their  own  historians  and  prophets  as  a 
stubborn  and  rebellious  people — ,had  always  observed  the 


7^  CHAPTER  VI.  PRtNCIPAL 

requirements  either  of  the  ceremonial  or  of  the  moral 
law.  The  very  prophets  whose  high  morality  the  new 
theory  commends,  are  the  strongest  witnesses  in  their 
powerful  denunciations  to  both  a  ceremonial  and  a  moral 
law,  each  of  which  must  have  existed  before  it  could  be 
either  obeyed  or  disobeyed. 

A  fourth  case  in  which  non-observance  of  legislation 
does  not  indicate  non-existence,  is  the  case  where  the 
leaders  and  rulers  of  the  people  are  too  wicked  and  too 
neglectful  to  enforce  it.  We  know  how  even  in  our  own 
country  there  are  so  many  laws  which  are  not  enforced 
and  have  been  forgotten.  Some  are  so  obsolete  that  their 
very  existence  may  be  unknown  to  the  masses.  Others 
are  known  but  looked  on  as  a  "dead  letter."  When  we 
called  to  mind  the  corruption  of  the  priests  in  many  of 
the  periods  of  Israelitish  history,  ^  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand how  the  laws  were  lying  neglected  among  the 
archives  of  the  temple. 

But,  in  the  last  place,  if  we  interpret  the  Pentateuchal 
book  of  laws,  as  the  negative  school  of  critics  is  bound 
to  do,  by  applying  common  sense  and  reason  and  the 
analogy  of  other  nations  to  them,  the  whole  argument 
falls  to  the  ground.  "If  we  interpret  what  seem  to  be 
legal  maxims  as  legal  maxims,  and  not  as  statutes ;  if 
we  apply  the  rule  that  when  the  reason  for  a  law  ceases, 
the  law  itself  ceases,  and  other  similar  rules,  —  in  short, 
if  we  may  interpret  these  books  as  other  historical  books 
containing  laws  are  commonly  interpreted,  we   shall  get 

1  Isa.  28.  7sq. ;  Mic.  3. 11.    Zeph.  3.  4,  etc. 


ARGUMENT  INCONCLUSIVE.  73 

a  very  different  idea  of  the  nature  of  many  of  their  re- 
quirements from  that  which  is  sometimes  presented. 
Remembering  that  rules  which  were  established  for  the 
camp  in  the  wilderness,  and  rules  which  presuppose  the 
existence  of  a  united  nation  with  a  central  sanctuary, 
cannot,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  have  been  intended 
to  apply,  without  modification,  to  individuals  for  whom 
neither  of  these  conditions  existed,  we  shall  find  no  dif- 
ficulty in  explaining  all  the  facts  of  the  history." 

Each  and  all  of  these  five  separate  cases  would  serve 
to  throw  light  on  the  alleged  fact  that  there  are  no  ref- 
erences to  the  ceremonial  law  in  the  old  Testament,  pre- 
vious to  the  days  of  the  exile.  The  reason  why  there 
are  more,  and  more  exact  references  in  the  post-exilian 
books,  to  the  Pentateuch,  inheres  in  the  nature  of  the 
change  which  began  in  the  sacred  writings  from  the  time 
of  Ezra.  With  him  began  the  period  not  of  the  giving 
of  the  law,  nor  of  the  coming  of  the  prophets,  but  of 
the  studying,  searching  and  quoting  of  the  old  docu- 
ments.    It  was  the  period  of  the  scribes. 


74  CHAPTER   YIT.  THERE   ARE 


CHAPTER  VII. 

I3UT  now  we  come  to  something  striking.     The  car- 
dinal assertion  on  which  the  principal  argu- 
ment of  the  negative  theory  rests,  is  contradicted  by 

the  facts.  The  alleged  absence  of  reference  to  the  cer- 
emonial law,  the  tabernacle  and  the  Pentateuch  is  not 
actual.  There  is  not  an  absence  of  such  reference  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

In  any  case,  it  is  an  ualikely  assumption  that  Israel, 
going  out  of  a  country  which,  long  before  the  exodus, 
possessed  a  large  and  influential  priestly  caste,  would 
have  been  without  a  priesthood.  And  it  is,  secondly,  a 
still  less  likely  assumption  that  this  early  priesthood  of 
Israel  would  have  remained  a  thousand  years  without 
written  priestly  laws.  It  would  be  a  natural  inference,  if 
there  were  no  positive  testimony,  that  the  priest  Mo- 
ses 1  established  a  ritual.  But  there  is  positive  testimony 
to  such  an  early  date  of  the  priestly  law. 

So  the  assertion  on  which  the  negative  argument  rests, 
that  there  is  no  reference  to  the  priestly  law  and  the  taber- 
nacle, is  not  true.  The  number  of  direct  references  is  sur- 
prising.    The  Pentateuch  itself  is  filled  with  direct  ref- 

1  Ex.  24.6  ff  :  Deut.  33.10 ;  Ps.  99,6. 


repekences  to  priestly  law.  75 

erences  and  with  descriptions  of  the  tabernacle  and  cer- 
emonial law,  though  it  is  ruled  out  as  being  incompetent 
to  testify  in  its  own  behalf.  But  there  is  one  book  in 
the  Pentateuch  which  cannot  be  thus  ruled  out.  It  is 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  Even  the  new  theory  i^laces 
this  book  as  early  as  the  reign  of  King  Josiah,  and  this 
book  testifies  fully  for  the  fact  in  question.  Compare 
Deuteronomy  18:2  with  Numbers  18:23sqq.,  and  Deuter- 
onomy 24:8,  where  a  priestly  law  concerning  leprosy  is 
is  referred  to,  such  as  is  found  in  Leviticus  13:14.  Deu- 
teronomy 23:  10,  makes  reference  to  the  ceremonial  law 
of  uncleanness. 

Secondly,  those  prophets  which  the  new  theory  admits 
as  witnesses  accepted  and  unimpeachable,  do  not  ignore, 
but  make  allusion  to  the  ceremonial  law.  The  prophet 
Micah  refers  to  priestly  teaching  in  3:  11.  The  prophet 
Jeremiah  mentions  "the  law  that  shall  not  perish  from 
the  priest"  in  18:18.  The  prophet  Zephaniah  refers  to 
both  the  tabernacle  and  the  law,  saying,  in  3.4,  "Her 
priests  have  polluted  the  sanctuary,  they  have  done  vio 
lence  to  the  law."  The  prophet  Hosea  refers  to  an  ex- 
tensive written  law. 

Still  further,  nearly  all  of  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  make  extended  allusions  to  the  priestly 
law.  The  book  of  Joshua,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands, 
implies  the  existence  and  observance  of  the  entire  cere- 
monial law.  The  Law  oi  Moses  and  the  Book  of  the  Law 
are  continually  spoken  of,  and  the  different  ordinances  of 
the  ceremonial  law  are  seen  to  be  observed.    The  answer 


76  CHAPTER   VI.  THERE   ARE 

made  by  the  negative  theory  in  rebuttal  to  this  testimony 
is  the  assumption  that  the  book  of  Joshua  is  a  forgery  of 
the  time  of  the  exile. 

The  book  of  Judges  offers  direct  testimony  for  the  ex- 
istence of  the  tabernacle  and  the  priestly  law.  It  speaks 
of  but  one  house  of  Jehovah,  19.8,  and  this  located  at 
Shiloh,  18.31  ;  of  the  annual  feast  there,  21.19  ;  of  Phin- 
ehas,  the  son  of  Eleazf^r,  the  son  of  Aaron  as  priest, 
20.28.  Though  the  idolater  Micah  consecrated  one  of  his 
own  sons  as  priest,  17.5  ;  he  was  delighted  to  have  a  Le- 
vite  instead,  who  deserted  his  service  to  become  priest 
of  a  tribe.  Beyond  doubt  he  would  have  been  more  will- 
ing still  to  have  been  a  priest  of  all  Israel  in  Shiloh,  if 
that  had  been  permissible.  ^ 

The  books  of  Samuel,  which  we  shall  take  up  below, 
and  the  books  of  Kings  also  show  that  the  tabernacle 
and  ritual  services  were  not  unknown  before  the  time  of 
Josiah.  I  Kings  expressly  quotes  Deuteronomy  17.17. 
I  Samuel  2.22  and  I  Kings,  8.4  make  distinct  mention  of 
the  tabernacle  as  a  historical  fact.  In  order  to  overturn 
this  testimony  of  the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings, 
the  negative  theory  turns  against  the  books  themselves. 
It  says  that  all  the  books  have  been  "worked  over,"  so 
that  passages  implying  the  Pentateuchal  laws  must  be 
assumed  to  have  been  interpolated  long  afterwards.  But 
wfvy  such  an  assumption  7nu8t  be  made  does  not  appear. 
To  set  up  a  theory,  on  the  ground  that  there  are  no  ref- 

1  Prof.  W.  H.  Green ;  to  whom  there  is  indebtedness  for  a  num- 
ber of  facts  and  statements  in  this,  and  several  other  chapters. 


KEFERENCES    TO   PRIESTLY   L.AW.  77 

crences  to  certain  facts;  and  then  when  references  to  those 
facts  appear  and  invalidate  the  ground  of  the  theory  ;  to 
dispose  of  them  by  saying  that  they  must  be  interpola- 
tions, because  they  are  contrary  to  the  theory,  is  arguing 
in  a  circle.  By  such  a  method  the  evidence  of  these 
books  cannot  be  excluded. 

In  Samuel's  childhood  the  Mosaic  ''tabernacle  of  the 
congregation, ' '  ^  named  in  Samuel  indifferently  ' '  the 
house  of  the  Lord,"  1.24;  and  "the  temple  of  the  Lord," 
1.9,  was  still  in  Shiloh,and  was  the  one  commanded  place 
of  sacrifice  for  Israel,  2.29.  Eli  and  his  sons  officiated 
there  as  descendants  of  Aaron,  whom  God  had  chosen 
out  of  all  the  tribes  to  be  his  priest,  2.28.  There  was  the 
ark  and  the  lamp  of  God,  3.2  ;  and  annual  pilgrimages 
were  made  thither  for  worship.  ^  The  offering  of  sacri- 
fices elsewhere  than  before  the  tabernacle,  in  these  times, 
is  natural  and  explainable.  ^ 

From  the  time  the  ark  was  captured  by  the  Philistines 

1  I  Sam.,  2.22. 

2  I  Sam.,  1.3.  7,  21:  2„14, 19. 

»  Sacrifices  in  the  presence  of  the  ark  were  not  irregular. 
Judges  20.  26,  27;  21. 4;  I  Sam,  6. 15.  The  phrase  ''before  God'' 
does  not  imply  a  particular  place  of  stated  worship,  Josh.,  24. 1; 
Judges  11.  11;  20.  1.  Again,  'Hhe  sanctuary  of  the  Lord"  at 
Shechem  was  not  a  building  erected  for  sacrifice,  —  for  the  oak 
was  "in  it"—,  but  a  spot  hallowed  by  its  associations.  Joshua  24. 
26.  The  sacrifices  at  Bochim  by  Gideon  and  by  Manoah  were 
called  forth  by  special  appearances  and  revelation  of  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  in  extraordinary  emergencies  at  places  distant  from 
the  tabernacle. 


78  CHAPTER   VII.  THERE   ARE 

until  it  was  brought  to  Zion  by  David,  there  was  no 
longer  a  sanctuary.  *  Samuel,  God's  immediate  repre- 
sentative, in  place  of  the  degenerate  priesthood,  offered 
sacrifice  in  various  parts  of  the  land.  When  the  temple 
was  dedicated,  the  tabernacle  is  mentioned  in  connection 
with  it.  This  is  in  I  Kings  8:4.  Shiloh  and  Jerusalem 
were  the  only  places  that  ever  became  the  abiding  spot 
of  the  ark  and  tabernacle.  Shiloh  was  the  national 
sanctuary  from  Joshua  to  Samuel,  and  Jerusalem  was 
the  same  from  David  onwards.  Between  the  days  of 
Samuel  and  David, the  people  worshipped  in  high  places, 
3:3  ;  but  then  the  high  places  in  Judah  wei-e  censured  by 
both  the  historian  and  the  prophets.  Elijah's  sacrifice 
on  Carmel  was  offered  by  direct  divine  command  ;  and 
the  unrebuked  altars  in  the  northern  kingdom,  18:30  ; 
19:10,  were  erected  by  those  who  could  not  go  up  to  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem. 

To  the  psalmists,  from  David  onward,  God's  sole  dwell- 
ing place  is  Zion.  Psalm  Forty  ^  testifies  to  the  exis- 
tence of  the  book  of  the  law.  The  older  prophets  allude 
to  the  ceremonial  law  and  denounce  the  sanctuaries  of 
the  northern  kingdom.  Hosea  speaks  of  a  written  law. 
Second  Kings  13:16  ;  and  Hosea  4:9  imply  that  sin  offer- 
ings were  known  before  the  time  of  Ezekiel.  ^  The 
prophet  Joel  speaks  respectfully  of  the  priests  and  be- 
wails the   famine,  for   cutting  off  the  offering,    (1:13  ; 

4  I  Sam.  2:32-36  ;  Ps.  78:60-68  ;  Jer.  7:12,14  ;  26:6,9. 

5  The  new  theory  puts  it  into  the  post-exilian  period. 

^    The  new  theory  explains  away  the  obvious  meaning  by  a 
strained  exegesis. 


KEFERENCES   TO   PRIESTLY   LAW.  T9 

2:14-17.)     Joel  has  always  been  regarded  as   one   of  the 
oldest  of  the  prophetical  books.  ' 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  the  alleged  absence  of  refer- 
ence to  the  Pentateuch,  the  tabernacle  and  the  ceremonial 
law  is  not  a  fact.     On  the  contrary  there  is  such  a  full- 
ness of  reference  that  even  after  the  passages  which  the 
new  theory  has  expurgated,  are  removed,  the    argumen- 
tumesilentio  willnot  apply  to  the  balance.    The  amount 
of  positive  testimony  rejected  is  astonishing.     Yet  even 
without  any  of  this  testimony,  it  is  well  to   remember, 
the  case  of  the  new  theory  would  still  be  weak.     For  the 
fact  that  the  prophets  complained  »  so  frequently  of  the 
immorality  of    the  priests,   makes   it   quite  clear,  says 
Bredekamp,  that  "the  old  laws  remained  lying  in  the  ar- 
chives of  the  temple  instead  of  governing  the  life  of  the 
people."      And   the  most  remarkable  fact   that   in   all 
prophetic  literature,  there  is  not  once  to  be  found  a  com- 
mand to  be  ^.0^2/, should,  remarks  Baudissin,  "be  a  warn- 
ing to  deal  carefully  with  the  non-occurrence  of  certain 
ideas  in  certain  books." 

•7  The  new  theory  also  puts  this  hook  after  the  exile.  Its  argu- 
ments in  this  matter  are  an  example  of  reasoning  in  a  circle. 
It  says,  first,  "The  Levitical  law  is  post-exilic,  because  there  is 
no  evidence  of  its  existence  in  pre-exilic  books."  Then  it  says, 
second,  "Whenever  such  evidences  are  found  in  the  pre-exilic 
books,  they  must  either  be  considered  as  later  interpolations,  or 
we  must  transfer  the  books  to  the  post-exilic  period"  ! 
8    Isaiah  28  7  ff.  :  Mic.  3:11 ;  Zeph.  3:4  ;  and  Jer.  passim. 


80  CHAPTER  VIII.  THE   NEW   THEORY   FAILS 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

'TpHE  negative  theory  is  not  only  inconclusive  in  deal- 
ing with  its  own  selected  facts,  but  it  fails  to  ex- 
plain other  cognate  facts  in  the  same  field.     Thus  it  fails 
to  explain  the  Origin  of  the  Sacrificial  Code 

It  sees  the  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  in  full  and  com- 
plete development  at  the  end  of  Israel's  career,  but  it  can- 
not tell  where  they  came  from,  nor  what  they  are  for. 
Here  is  a  singular  and  central  phenomenon  in  Israel,  for 
which  it  has  no  rational  explanation. 

The  theory  may  take  the  ground  that  the  sacrifices 
were  a  development  of  the  natural  religion,  like  the 
heathen  rites  and  ceremonies  around  them,  and  that  they 
were  not  directly  instituted  by  God.  But  then  it  is  hold- 
ing that  an  institution  which  God,  through  the  prophets, 
is  alleged  to  have  condemned,  is  the  one  towards  which 
the  religion  of  the  nation  was  more  and  more  tending. 
Therefore  the  evolution  of  the  Jewish  religion  was  a  de- 
velopment downwards  or  backwards.  It  began  with  the 
lofty  spirituality  of  the  prophets  and  ended  with  the 
gross  formality  of  the  priests.  But  this  conclusion  is  in- 
consistent with  the  evolutionary  principle  underlying  the 
new  theory,  and  with  other  parallel  parts  of  the  nega- 
tive hypothesis.     The  very  scholars  who  regard  the  sacri- 


TO   EXPLAIN   SACRIFICES.  81 

ficial  code  as  a  product  of  the  post-exilian  period  argue 
(without  the  historical  evidence)  that  the  Psalms  must 
have  been  a  product  of  the  same  or  a  later  date,  on  the 
ground  that  the  religious  development  of  the  previous 
centuries  was  not  adequate  to  their  production.  But 
surely  one  cannot  be  allowed  to  assume  an  upward  pro- 
gress when  discussing  the  Psalter,  and  a  downward  pro- 
gress when  discussing  the  ritual.  ^ 

But  if  the  new  theory  takes  the  ground  that  the  sacrifices 
were  really  commanded  or  sanctioned  by  God,  it  is  again  in 
difficulty.  Why  would  God  introduce  sacrifices  at  the 
end  of  the  Old  Testament  period?  What  meaning  or  ob- 
ject could  they  have?  They  could  not  have  been  a  mere 
form  for  form's  sake.  They  could  not  have  been  merely 
a  destruction  of  property  for  the  sake  of  the  loss  inflicted. 
They  were  surely  not  intended  to  develope  self-righteous- 
ness, by  their  being  performed  merely  as  an  opus  oper- 
atum. 

They  must  have  had  some  better  significance.  That 
this  is  so,  even  the  prophets  imply  in  the  figures  which 
they  draw  from  the  ritual  service.  Sacrifices  were  an 
expression  of  praise,  consecration,  and  penitence.  But 
they  were  an  expression  adapted  to  the  beginning,  to  a 
primitive  state  of  religious  development.  And  would  the 
divine  plan,  even  according  to  the  law  of  evolution,  have 
begun  with  a  spiritual  code  of  morals,  and  have  ended 
after  a  thousand  years  with  a  system  of  external  sacri- 
ficial rites.     They  were  needed,  if  at  all,  from  the  very 

1    Prof.  C.  M.  Mead, 


82  CHAPTER  VIII.  THE   NEW   THEORY   PAILS 

beginning  of  the  religious  development  of  the  people. 
Besides,  their  symbolical  language  could  be  understood 
only  as  they  accompanied  the  moral  law.  And  again, 
to  suppose  that  God  at  first  gave  a  moral  law,  and  then 
waited  a  thousand  years  before  he  gave  the  ritual,  requires 
us  to  assume  that,  after  denouncing  as  religious  sacrilege, 
the  sacrifices  which  the  people  had  in  their  own  gropings 
instituted,  God  at  last  instituted  as  a  religious  duty  what 
was  in  su'Bstance  the  same  thing  ! 

If  symbolism  was  needed  to  set  forth  thanksgiving, 
consecration,  and  expiation,  it  was  needed  at  the  begin- 
ning, rather  than  near  the  end  of  the  Jewish  national  ex- 
istence. If  it  was  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  it  is 
quite  intelligible  that  it  might  have  been  more  or  less 
abused  and  misunderstood,  or  loosely  observed,  that  after 
the  great  national  misfortune  it  might  have  been  more 
carefully,  and  even  too  punctiliously  performed  accord- 
ing to  the  terms  of  the  ritual  law.  But  if  there  was 
originally  no  such  ritual  legislation  at  all,  it  could  hardly 
have  been  introduced  by  any  one  inspired  of  God,  at  the 
late  date  assigned  to  it. 

The  more  we  study  the  sacrificial  and  moral  legislation 
of  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  the  more  we  shall  be  convinced 
that  it  could  have  been  made  only  for  a  very  primitive, 
somewhat  savage  people,  of  a  high  antiquity  ;  afar  off  it 
tells  of  the  desert  and  of  an  early  people.  Yet  the  legisla- 
tion itself  is  not  the  work  of  a  primitive  mind.  From  a 
merely  human  and  critical  point  of  view,  it  corresponds 
well  with  what  we  know   of  the  mind   of  Moses,  which 


TO  EXPLAIN   SACRIFICES.  83 

was  imbued  with  the  civilization  of  Egypt,  where  elabo- 
rate priest  codes  and  rituals  were  in  use.  Coming  from 
such  a  land,  with  such  a  leader,  it  is  not  likely  that  Israel 
waited  a  thousand  years  before  giving  its  priests  a  writ- 
ten code  for  their  organization  and  duties. 

If,  on  the  one  hand,  the  new  theory  fails  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  sacrifices ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  explana- 
tion given  by  the  Old  Testament  itself  is  satisfactory. 
Even  according  to  the  decision  of  the  new  school,  Deu- 
teronomy cannot  be  later  than  the  time  of  Josiah,  and 
just  this  book  bears  witness  to  the  existence  of  such  a 
code.  "Everywhere  in  Deuteronomy,  where  the  book 
contents  itself  with  a  mere  general  outline  and  sketch  of 
precepts  which,  in  practical  life,  demand  a  special  appli- 
cation and  complement,  the  conclusion  must  be  drawn 
that  more  special  commands,  which  it  presupposed  and 
to  which  it  points,  were  already  in  existence."  ^ 

The  flaws  pointed  out  in  the  Old  Testament  explana- 
tion of  the  rise  of  the  sacrificial  code  are  not  flaws  in  re- 
ality. There  is  no  divergence  in  the  laws  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  respect  to  the  altar.  Exodus  20:24  gives  no 
sanction  to  simultaneous  plurality  of  altars.  In  Leviti- 
cus, priestly  duties  are  assigned  by  name  to  Aaron  and 
his  sons  as  the  officiating  persons.  Deuteronomy,  which 
mainly  respects  the  future,  describes  the  priests  by  the 
tribe  to  which  they  belonged,  as  Levitical  priests  ;  but  it 
neither  asserts  nor  implies,  as  has  sometimes  been  main- 
tained, that  every  Levite  was  entitled  to  discharge  priestly 

I    Delitzsch,  in  1880, 


84  CHAPTER  VIII.  NEW   THEORY   FAILS 

functions.  Leviticus  has,  of  course,  fuller  details  in  rt- 
spect  to  the  feasts  and  the  ritual  than  Deuteronomy,  but 
there  is  no  disao^reement  between  them. 


TO   FIT   DEUT.    AND   LEVITICUS.  85 


T 


CHAPTER   IX. 

HE  negative  theory  fails  to  fit  Deuteronomy  into 
the  time  of  Josiah,  and  Leviticus  into  the  time 
of  Ezra.  If  they  were  produced  in  these  times  there  is 
much  in  them  that  is  superfluous  ;  and  there  are  doctrines 
and  environments  that  do  not  correspond  in  the  degree 
of  development  with  the  age  in  which  they  are  said  to 
belong.  In  reality,  each  of  these  bodies  of  law  not  only 
has  its  distinct  occasion  and  separate  purpose,  but  each 
is  appropriate  to  the  circumstances  which  called  it  forth. 
Both  were  moulded  throughout  by  the  abode  in  the 
wilderness,  and  their  style  and  character  are  as  diflferent 
as  possible  from  that  which  they  must  have  borne,  if 
they  had  been  produced  at  any  subsequent  period. 

The  Pentateuch,  for  instance,  ordains  rites,  but  sug- 
gests no  explanation  of  them.  This  was  a  matter  of  sub- 
sequent reflection,  as  respecting  sacrifice  (Ps.  40  ;  Isa.  53.) 
purifications  (Ps.  26:6,  51:7),  incense  (Ps.  141:2),  the 
privileges  of  God's  house  (Ps.  27:4),  the  comparative 
value  of  ritual  and  spiritual  worship  (Ps.  50:8,  ss; 
51  :I6-17,  Isa.  1 :11  s  s. )  If  these  laws  had  not  been  writ- 
ten until  the  time  of  Ezra,  we  would  be  having  the  re- 
flections and  explanations  before  the  law  itself. 


8(t 

Then,  in  the  case  of  those  Mosaic  laws  which  were  ex- 
panded by  usage  at  a  quite  early  period  of  Israel's  his- 
tory, we  would  have  the  expansion  before  we  have  the 
existence  of  the  law  itself.  Such  laws,  for  instance  are 
that  of  the  levirate  marriage  in  Ruth,  the  Nazarite  in 
Samson,  and  the  consecration  of  the  first-born  in  Samuel. 
Thus  to©  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  was  enlarged  by 
music  and  by  courses  of  priests  under  David,  and  its  ves- 
sels multiplied  under  Solomon  ;  and  the  prophetic  order, 
of  which  the  Pentateuch  speaks  as  still  future,  super- 
seded the  priestly  responses,  for  which  it  made  provision. 

Still  again,  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  teachings  respecting 
the  Messiah,  divine  retribution,  the  evil  spirit,  and  the 
future  state,  are  of  the  most  elementary  character,  and 
in  all  these  points,a  great  advance  is  made  in  the  Psalms 
and  other  poetical  books,  and  in  the  prophets.  ^ 

1  So,  too,  the  Pentateuch's  account  of  the  creation,  the  fall, 
and  the  deluge,  while  free  from  polytheistic  conceptions,  has 
such  points  of  contact  with  the  old  Assyrian  stories  as  estab- 
lish its  high  antiquity. 


88  CHAPTER   X.  PRESENCE   OF 


CHAPTER   X. 

'TpHE  negative  theory  fails  to  explain  the  presence 
of  many  legal  regulations,  and  of  ideas, 
that  are  meaningless  after  the  exile.  What  pur- 
pose could  the  regulations  in  reference  to  Urim  and 
Thummim,  Ex.  28.30  ;  Lev  8.  8  ;  Num  27.  21  ;  cf,  Ezra 
2.  63  ;  and  Neh.  7  65,  have  had,  if  they  were  post  exil- 
ian ?  What  can  the  post-exilian  theory  do  with  the  reg- 
ulations in  regard  to  the  jubilee  year,  Lev.  25.  8  if.  ?  Or 
in  regard  to  the  Levitical  cities,  and  the  cities  of  refuge. 
in  the  thirty-fifth  chapter  of  Numbers.  These  laws  are 
all  in  the  priest  code.  Further,  the  priest  code  confines 
itself  to  and  gives  only  the  services  to  be  performed  by 
the  Levites  in  the  wilderness,  and  no  special  legislation  is 
made  for  the  time  of  rest  in  Canaan.  If  the  priest  code 
were  post  exilian,  that  could  scarcely  have  been  the  case. 
Such  a  fiction  would  not  have  fitted  into  exilian  needs, 
and  would  hardly  have  occurred  to  exilian  writers. 

In  general,  the  narratives  and  ideas  that  fill  the  Penta- 
teuch, Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings  are  at  vari- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  the  times  after  the  exile.  They 
are  the  outcome  of  a  primitive  civilization  which  could 
not  have  been  imagined  later  on.  It  passess  all  histori- 
cal probability  to  regard  the  laws  of  Exodus  and  Leviti- 


LEGAL  REGULATIOKS.  89 

cus  as  invented  by,  say  the  contemporaries  of  Alexan- 
der the  Great.  Not  only  are  the  general  contents  against 
such  an  origin,  but  the  smallest  details  are  at  war  with 
this  adaptation. 

Take  one  example  among  many  ,  "A  stranger  shalt 
thou  not  wrong,  neither  shalt  thou  oppress  him  ;  for  ye 
were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt"  (Ex.  22:  21  ;  23.9). 
Can  we  believe  that  we  have  here  a  writer,  a  legislator 
of  the  third  century  B.  C,  suggesting  as  the  motive  of  an 
important  law,  which  was  opposed  to  the  customs  of 
his  people,  an  imaginary  fact,  invented  by  him,  which 
must  have  taken  place  a  thousand  years  before,  in  place 
of  resting  this  law  upon  the  events  of  the  captivity 
which  still  burned  in  the  memories  and  hearts  of  the 
people  ?  Even  Kuehnen  and  Cheyne  have  been  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  some  of  these  laws  and  regulations 
could  not  have  been  written  after  the  exile.  Thus 
Cheyne  says  "the  Priestly  Code  contains  many  very 
early  elements.  Leviticus  xi  for  instance,  which  is  vir- 
tually identical  with  Deuteronomy  xiv.  4-20,  is,  no 
doubt,  as  Kuehnen  says,  'a  later  and  amplified  edition  of 
those  priestly  decisions  on  clean  and  unclean  animals, 
which  the  Deuteronomist  adopted.'  And  above  all, 
Leviticus  xvii-xxvi,  when  carefully  studied,  is  seen  to 
contain  an  earlier  stratum  of  legislation,  which  'exhibits 
a  characteristic  phraseology,  and  is  marked  by  the  pre- 
ponderance of  certain  characteristic  principles  and  mo- 
tives?'" In  other  words,  even  in  the  post-exilian  docu_ 
ment    of  the  priest  code  there  are  regulations,  customs 


90  CHAPTER  X.  LEGAL  REGtJLATIONS. 

and  language,  which  judged  simply  by  the  subjective  can- 
ons of  the  negative  school,  will  not  at  all  fit  into  the  pe- 
riod to  which  the  document  is  assigned,  and  which  can 
only  be  disposed  of  by  postulating  a  complicated  author- 
ship. 


PERSONALITY  OF  JitOSIS.  91 


CHAPTER  XI. 

'TpHE  negative  view  of  the  Pentateuch  fails  to  pre- 
sent a  tolerably  plausible  theory  of  the  person- 
ality of  the  great  reputed  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

It  divides  and  doubles  the  traditional  Moses  ;  but  its  at- 
tempt is  flimsy,  and  does  not  satisfy  either  historical  prob- 
ability or  the  facts.  Its  first  Moses  is  the  original  but 
mythical  reality  of  the  exodus.  Its  second  Moses  is  the 
amplified  character  elaborately  constructed  from  the 
brain  of  the  litterateurs  of  the  exile.  Its  theory  would 
be  more  conveniently  served  if  it  could  make  a  complete 
myth  of  the  earlier  and  real  Moses,  but  in  view  of  the 
utterances  of  the  early  prophets,  it  is  compelled  to  leave 
to  him  his  life,  and  to  admit  that  he  conducted  the  exo- 
dus and  originated  a  few  rudimentary  laws. 

But,  suppose  we  strip  the  Pentateuch  of  its  alleged 
later  supplementary  elements.  On  the  one  hand  the 
shadowy  earlier  Moses  will  be  too  feeble  a  foundation, 
too  slender  a  pillar  of  support,  for  all  that  is  still  left  of 
the  early  history  of  Israel,  with  its  battles,  victories,  de- 
feats, organization,  settlement,  detailed  customs,  insti- 
tutions and  traditions.  The  weight  of  even  the 
remaining  historic  detail  is  still  too  heavy  for  a  Moses  who 
is  little  more  than  a  shadow  to  hold  aloft. 

And  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to  satisfactorily 
reduce  Moses  to  a  half  mythical  personality.     He  is  one 


92  CHAPTER   XI.  MOSES 

of  those  characters  we  cannot  kill  off.  He  will  live  in 
strength  and  force  of  sharp-cut  detailed  act  in  spite  of 
our  arguments  and  desires  to  the  contrary.  In  infancy, 
for  instance,  he  was  exposed,  but  in  a  strictly  probable, 
and  not  in  a  mythical  fashion.  He  cannot  be  placed  in 
the  category  of  Semiramis  or  with  Romulus  and  Remus. 
No  dove  came  to  feed  the  babe  in  the  bulrushes,  no  wolf 
to  suckle  it.  Audit  is  dry,  hard,  natural  law,  corroborated 
in  details  by  extra-biblical  facts,  that  the  Egyptian  king 
should  fear  the  menace  of  a  prolific  subject  race,  and 
should  seek  to  cripple  it ;  that  Moses'  parents  should 
conceal  him  as  long  as  possible  ;  that  maternal  affection 
should  devise  the  cunning  expedients  adopted, relying  on 
the  prompting  of  a  woman's  sympathy  to  have  her  babe 
spared.  The  narrative  is  also  natural  in  its  silences. 
There  is  no  mention  of  his  boyhood  in  the  palace,  of  his 
youth  at  the  university,  of  his  manhood  at  court,  of  the 
possible  honors,  jealousies,  intrigues  and  perils  about 
one  so  near  the  throne,  yet  so  far  from  it.  What  a  tempt- 
ing field  for  romance  !  Surely  the  post-exilian  chroni- 
cler might  have  put  in  a  little  of  the  heroic  and  marvel- 
ous for  us.  But  Moses  comes  and  goes  before  us  as  a 
bare  man,  and  only  as  he  is  an  instrument  in  relation  to 
the  great  purposes  of  Jehovah.  There  is  nothing  of  the 
humanistic  interest  in  this  tale.  Nor  is  there  such  a  lit- 
erary filling  up  of  the  character  as  even  the  moral  ear- 
nestness of  Ezra  would  have  been  tempted  to  make,  for 
the  purpose  of  placing  the  character  as  an  ideal  before 
the  people. 


THE    TEBM   MOSAIC.  98 


CHAPTER  XII. 

'TT'HE  negative  theory  involves  itself  in  contradiction 
in  trying  to  explain  its  term  "flosaic."  It  as- 
sumes that  the  law  was  not  by  Moses,  yet  affirms  that  it 
was  necessary  for  later  legislators  to  frame  and  name 
the  code  as  if  coming  from  actual  Moses.  It  maintains 
that  Moses  gave  no  laws  but  the  decalogue,  and  yet 
teaches  that  Ezra  found  it  necessary  to  promulgate  the 
whole  pentateuchal  law,  including  the  ceremonial,  un- 
der the  name  of  Moses. 

There  is  weakness  here.  It  is  impossible  to  show 
cause  for  the  necessity  of  terming  the  Ezraiticlaw  "Mo- 
saic in  spirit."  If  Moses  gave  no  laws,  except  perhaps 
a  few  moral  laws,  and  if  his  personality  was  such  a 
shadowy  thing  in  all^the  prime  of  Israel's  history,  Ezra 
would  not  have  fixed  on  him  as  the  one  to  father  such  a 
mass  of  priestly  and  detailed  ceremonial  legislation.  It 
is  a  question  whether  such  an  unnatural  expansion,  by 
which  from  a  grain  of  one  kind — the  moral,  a  ton  of 
another  kind — the  sacerdotal,  is  developed,  would  have 
occurred  to  Ezra.  And  if  it  did,  the  people  would  have 
regarded  it  as  a  very  weak  expedient.  If  the  clergy  of 
Germany  today  desired  to  introduce  a  full-fledged) code  of 
minute  Sabbatarian  laws,  they  could  not  and  would  not 


94  CHAPTER  XII.  PAILS  TO  EXPLAIN 

go  back  to  Martin  Luther  to  father  them,  nor  could  they 
call  them  by  the  term  "Lutheran." 

According  to  the  negative  theory,  first  of  all,  there 
was  a  great  antagonism  between  the  moral  and  the  cer- 
emonial law:  the  prophets  were  always  enforcing  the 
decalogue  as  over  against  the  sacrificial  rites  of  their 
hearers.  But  if  now  the  decalogue  was  in  the  spirit  of 
Moses;  ih.Q  priesf  s  law,  which  was  the  competitor  of  the 
decalogue,  according  to  the  new  theory,  could  neither 
have  been,  nor  have  been  considered  as  an  evolution  out 
of  the  decalogue.  A  development  of  the  ritual  law  out 
of  the  decalogue  is  very  much  like  a  development  of 
Roman  Catholicism  out  of  Puritanism  ! 

Neither,  in  the  second  place,  would  such  a  real  or  as- 
sumed development  have  been  accepted  by  the  later 
Jewish  people.  If  Moses  was  a  very  dim  figure  to  them, 
if  the  law  of  Moses  is  not  mentioned  in  the  historical 
books  and  seems  to  have  been  unknown  ;  if  the  pro- 
phetic books,  in  which  Moses  is  seldom  mentioned  at  all, 
and  in  the  few  cases  in  which  he  is  mentioned  (except 
the  late  Daniel  and  Malachi)  is  not  spoken  of  as  a 
lawgiver,  but  only  as  a  leader;  ^are  the  only  books  that 
are  authentic  and  were  in  existence,  previous  to  the  ex- 
ile, the  priest  class  would  not  have  found  it  either  nec- 
essary or  advisable  or  possible  to  call  all  their  legisla- 
tion "Mosaic." 

When  David  or  Solomon  or  other  kings  made  laws, 
moral  or  ceremonial,  they  did  not  call  them   "Mosaic" 

1 13.53. 11,.12;  Jer.  15, 1;  Mic.  6.  4. 


THE  TERM  MOSAIC.  95 

or  in  form  ascribe  them  to  Moses.  When  Ezekiel,  who 
is  alleged  to  have  undertaken  to  introduce  an  elaborate 
ritual  which  was  new  for  the  most  part  to  the  Jews  of 
his  time,  and  was  the  fore-runner  of  the  post  exilian 
Levitical  code,  brought  out  his  law,  he  did  not  call  it 
"Mosaic."  The  principle  that  all  legislation  had  to  be 
in  form  attributed  to  Moses,  here  breaks  down  in  the 
most  conspicuous  instance.  If  Ezekiel  came  with  the 
authority  of  a  prophet,  needing  no  Moses  to  lean  on, 
why  did  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  any  more  than 
his  contemporary  Ezekiel,  hide  himself  behind  the 
name  of  Moses,  especially  if  Moses  as  a  legislator  had 
been  previously  as  good  as  unknown  ?  ^ 

a  Prof.  CM.  Mead. 


CHAPTEB  XIII.  FAILS   TO  EXPLAIN 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

'TpHE  negative  theory  fails  in  its  own  principle,  when 
applied  to  an  explanation    of    the  rise  of    the 
prophets. 

According  to  the  negative  theory,  the  prophets  between 
600  and  800  B.  C,  Isaiah,  Hosea,  Amos  and  their  con- 
temporaries, were  the  earliest  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. While  there  was  probably  a  Torah  before  the 
time  of  these  writers,  it  was  entirely  oral,  it  is  said  ;  and 
while  there  were  some  fragments  of  Israelitish  literature, 
these,  it  is  affirmed,  were  not  proper] y  of  the  character 
of  sacred  literature.  So  that,  according  to  the  negative 
theory,  there  was  no  literature  of  account  before  these 
prophets. 

The  principle  of  the  negative  theory  is  the  law  of  nat- 
ural growth.  All  Old  Testament  literature  is  a  develop- 
ment ;  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  and  then  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear.  But  what  a  blade  we  have  in  the  early 
prophets  !  Why,  it  excels  the  full  corn.  It  is  the  acme 
of  the  Old  Testament's  literary  development.  These 
very  first  authentic  utterances  of  the  Jewish  mind  rise  at 
once  to  the  sublimest  heights  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  and 
take  a  place  among  the  grandest  and  most  elevated  wri- 
tings in  history! 


X 


THE  RISE   OF   THE  PROPHETS.  97 

Matthew  Arnold,  a  literary  critic  certainly  not  preju- 
diced in  favor  of  the  orthodox  view,  writes  that  "The 
Hebrew  language  and  genius,  it  is  admitted  by  common 
consent,  are  seen  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah  at  their  perfec- 
tion ;  this  has  naturally  had  its  effect  on  the  English 
translation,  which  nowhere  rises  to  such  beauty  as  in 
this  book."  And  another  writer,  Dr.  Stalker,  remarl  s, 
"The  prophetic  books  are  almost  'as  artistic  as  poems. 
Their  literary  form  is  not  exactly  poetry,  though  now 
and  then  it  crosses  its  own  boundary  and  becomes  poet- 
ical. It  is  a  kind  of  rhythmical  prose,  governed  by  laws 
of  its  own,  which  it  carefully  observes.  All  the  proph 
ets  are, indeed, not  equally  careful.  Some  of  them  appear 
to  have  been  too  completely  carried  away  with  the 
message  which  they  had  to  deliver  to  think  much  of 
the  way  of  delivering  it.  But  these  were  not  the 
strongest  of  the  prophets.  ...  At  the  head  of  them  all 
stands  Isaiah.  All  the  resources  of  poetry  and  elo- 
quence are  at  his  command.  His  language  ranges 
through  every  mode  of  beauty  and  sublimity,  being 
sometimes  like  the  pealing  of  silver  bells,  and  sometimes 
like  the  crashing  of  avalanches,  and  sometimes  like  the 
songs  of  seraphim."  And  even  the  most  negative  of 
critical  scholars  will  admit  that  parts  of  this  remarkable 
book  were  written  by  Isaiah  in  the  days  of  King  Heze- 
kiah.  And  they  lay  all  emphasis  on  the  genuineness  of 
the  earlier  prophetical  writings.  This  is  indeed  one  of 
the  foundation  stones  of  their  theory.  Yet  these  are  the 
very  scholars  who  hold  that  the   Jewish  religion  could 


98  CHAPTER  XIII.  THE  PROPHETS. 

not  have  produced  the  Psalms  till  during  or  after  the 
captivity,  They  "admit  the  genuineness  of  the  pro- 
phetical writings,  which  are  saturated  with  quite  as 
lofty,  pure  and  fervent  a  religious  spirit  as  that  of  the 
best  of  the  Psalms;"  and  deny  the  genuineness  of  the 
Psalms.  "One  could  not  well  conceive  of  a  more  glaring 
self-contradiction  than  that  which  is  involved  in  conced- 
ing, on  the  one  hand,  the  genuineness  of  the  prophetical 
books,  and  in  contending,  on  the  other,  that  the  Jews 
could  not  have  developed  their  religious  poetry  till  cen- 
turies afterwards. 

If  Hebrew  literature  began  in  such  a  glory,  and  with 
such  eloquent  and  artistic  work,  the  law  of  literary  de- 
velopment is  an  unreliable  guide  to  go  by  in  judging  of 
the  age  of  biblical  books.  How  different  and  more  nat- 
ural is  the  account  of  the  'Bible,  which  attributes  liter- 
ary authorship  by  name  to  Moses,  Joshua,  Samuel,  Gad, 
Nathan,  Asaph,  David,  Solomon,  Iddo,  Shemaiah,  Ahi- 
jah,Elijah  and  several  others  before  the  literary  prophets 
of  the'eighth  century. 


THE  WORDS  OP  THE  PROPHETS.  99 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

'T'HE    negative    theory   forces    the    Words    of   the 

Prophets  into  an  interpretation  against  the  existence 
of  the  ceremonial  law.  If  it  be  true  that  the  prophets 
fail  to  mention  its  existence,  it  is  also  true  that  they 
fail  to  mention  the  existence  of  the  decalogue.  And  it 
would  have  been  much  more  natural  for  them  to  hare 
referred  to  the  latter  than  to  the  former.  For  they  were 
contending  against  immorality  combined  with  supersti- 
tious trust  in  sacrificial  offerings.  They  would  have 
had  occasion  to  lay  stress  on  the  observance  of  the  moral 
law  ;  but  they  had  no  occasion  to  lay  any  stress  on  the 
observance  of  the  ceremonial  law.  On  the  contrary  as 
the  ceremonial  law  was  over-used  and  abused,  the 
prophets  strongly  condemned  this  ritualistic  formalism, 
Jeremiah  even  going  so  far  as  to  say — very  like  the 
fashion  of  modern  indignant  emphatic  speakers— for 
the  effect  of  rhetorical  emphasis — "I  spake  not  unto 
your  fathers  nor  commanded  them,  in  the  day  that  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices. "    7.  33 

Now  these  are  the  words  which  the  negative  criticism 
would  interpret  against  the  existence  of  a  ceremonial 
law.    Taken  literally  they   say  just    that.    But  thase 


100  CHAPTER  XIV.  FORCES 

were  not  spoken  literally,  as  is  very  evident.  Under 
the  circumstances  of  their  utterance  they  are  a  strong 
proof  of  the  existence  of  the  ceremonial  law.  And,  be- 
sides, Jeremiah  himself,  unfortunately  for  the  negative 
criticism,  presents  an  additional  and  literal  proof  of  the 
existence  of  the  ceremonial  law  in  his  positive  state- 
ment (34.  12-14)  that  the  law  concerning  the  redemption 
of  Hebrew  servants  was  given  at  the  time  of  the  exodus. 
If  the  first  passage  is  figurative,  this  is  literal.  And  if 
the  first  passage  is  literal,  this  also  is  literal,  and  shows 
that  he  knew  of  the  existence  of  either  Deuteronomy  or 
of  the  Book  of  the  covenant,  and  both  of  these  show 
that  God  did  command  them  concerning  sacrifices. 

Again  where  Jeremiah,  31,  31-33,  tells  of  the  new 
covenant,  when  the  law  of  God  is  to  be  written  on  the 
heart  of  his  people,  he  also  tells  of  the  old  covenant 
made  at  the  time  of  the  exodus.  He  also,  11, 1-5,  makes 
a  formal  quotation  of  what  seems  to  be  Lev.  26,  3,  12, 
which,  on  the  theory,  had  not  been  written  yet.  And  in 
general  his  references  and  those  of  other  prophets  show 
that  a  considerable  body  of  laws  is  assumed  by  them  to 
have  been  given  at  the  time  of  thesexodus.  Their  prej- 
udicial expressions  against  sacrifices  are  due  to  the 
common  abuse  of  sacrifices  in  that  day.  They  cannot 
have  meant  to  inveigh  against  them  as  such,  for  they  rep- 
resent the  ideal  future  state  as  one  in  which  sacrificial 
rites  are  to  be  observed.  Thus  Jeremiah  himself 
speaks  of  the  time  when  they  shall  come  from  many 
places  bringing  burnt-oflerings    and   sacrifices,   17.  25. 


THE   WORDS   OF   THE    PROPHETS.  101 

And  Isaiah,  33,  17-32,  Zechariah,  Zephaniah  and  Hosea 
say  the  same  with  equal  emphasis.  Nowhere  do  the 
prophets  speak  of  an  ideal  future  as  characterized  by 
the  absence  of  sacrifice,  while  they  repeatedly  speak  of 
such  a  future  as  characterized  by  their  presence.  And, 
though  they  did  lay  greatest  stress  on  moral  uptight- 
ness  as  the  need  of  the  moment,  because  that  was  the 
greatest  lack  then,  yet  since  their  great  ideal  church  is 
conceived  as  one  in  which  sacrifices  are  off'ered,  they 
must  have  regarded  the  old  law  of  Jehovah  as  prescrib- 
ing such  sacrifices,  i  If  it  had  not,  their  very  bent 
toward  morality  would  have  swung  them  away  from 
the  ceremonial  element. 

1  From  the  words  of  Isaiah  19:19,  ''In  that  day  shall  there  be 
an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  a 
pillar  at  the  border  thereof",  Robertson  Smith  draws  the  con- 
clusion that  Deuteronomy  could  not  have  been  written  before 
Isaiah.  But  Deut.  XVI,  21,  22,  only  condemns  idolatrous  "pil- 
lars" and  herein  agrees  with  acknowledged  old  passages  (Exod. 
23:24).  Moses  himself  erected  twelve  pillars  at  the  side  of  the 
altar,  (Exod.  24:4)!  Here  we  find  grounds  again  to  justify  us  in 
holding  that  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  18:4)  recognized  the  binding 
character  of  the  injunction  of  a  central  altar,  and  hence  recog- 
nized the  authority  of  DeuteTonomj .— Struck. 


102  ASSUMES  TWO 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  negative  theory  requires  a  faith  in  the  assump- 
tion that  the  most  of  the  Mosaic  law  could  twice  be 
smugg^led  into  general  currency,  on  two  occasions 
about  two  hundred  years  apart.  The  Mosaic  law  was  re- 
ceived by  the  whole  Hebrew  nation  as  the  work  of  Moses 
written  under  the  inspiration  of  God.  This  national  re- 
ception of  it  as  such  by  the  whole  Hebrew  people, — a 
testimony  in  itself  sufficient  to  outweigh  conjectures  of 
centuries  away  critical  scholars — ,  we  put  aside  for 
the  moment,  in  order  to  discuss  each  of  the  two  cases  on 
their  own  merits. 

The  earliest  case  is  that  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy. 
Deuteronomy  is  held  not  to  have  been  written  until  a 
short  time  previous  to  the  reforms  of  Josiah,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  those  reforms.  It  is  held  to  have  been 
then  promulgated,  as  an  ancient  work,  long  lost,  just 
come  to  light. 

The  first  objection  to  this  theory  is  that  it  does  not 
correspond  to  the  most  important  fact  in  the  case.  For 
the  account  of  the  discovery — "I  have  found  the  book  of 
the  law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord"  (2  Kings  22.8) — indi- 
cates that  its  contents  were  known,  not  only  to  Hilkiah, 
but  to  others,  and  that  it  was  found  in  the  temple,  its 


GREAT  NATIONAL   DECEPTIONS.  lOS 

proper  place,;  Deut.  31.  26.  The  book  found  there  in 
the  temple  must  have  contained  at  least  a  part  of  Deu- 
teronomy; for  the  words  of  chapter  28  in  Deuteronomy- 
explain  Huldah's  utterances,  and  the  contents  of  the 
book  as  a  whole  explain  Josiah's  reforms.  MoreoTer 
the  simple  and  natural  explanation  of  the  case  is  the  one 
intended  to  be  conveyed  in  the  text,  that  the  priest  seek- 
ing among  the  records  of  the  long-neglected  sanctuary 
really  found  the  old  book  from  the  time  of  Moses. 

The  second  objection  to  the  negative  theory  is  that  the 
book  was  at  once  so  universally  accepted.  It  must  have 
been  a  book  known,  or  heard  of,  and  respected,  before 
the  time  it  was  found.  Otherwise  it  would  not  have  re- 
ceived such  rapid  and  universal  recognition,  unless  in- 
deed it  was  strongly  attested  by  some  oflBcial  and  uni- 
versally respected  personal  forces  of  the  day.  Did  Hil- 
kiah  and  the  priests  thus  attest  it  ?  Not  if  it  was  a  new 
book  to  be  smuggled  in.  It  would  not  have  been  a  book 
to  suit  ^them,  according  to  the  new  theory  of  Hebrew 
history.  According  to  that  theory,  the  injunction  of 
Deuteronomy  18.  6-8,  must  have  been  very  unwelcome  to 
the  priests  at  Jerusalem.  Nevertheless  they  and  Hil- 
kiah  do  cooperate  to  spread  the  authority  of  the  book. 
So  we  here  have  a  reasonably  probable  proof  that  the 
book  was  not  just  newly  made,  but  that  it  already  en- 
joyed irresistible  authority  at  the  time  of  its  discovery. 
On  the  whole,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  party  spirit 
has  the  same  general  qualities  in  all  ages,  it  would  pro- 
bably not  be  putting  the  case  too  strongly  to  say  that  it 


104  THE  WORDS   OP   THE   PROPHETS. 

would  have  been  as  easy  to  originate  and  bring  a  smug- 
gled book  into  general  acceptance  among  both  reform 
and  anti-reform  elements  in  those  days,  on  the  ground  of 
it&  having  been  ostensibly  written  by  Moses  ;  as  it  would 
be  easy  in  our  day  and  land  to  originate  and  bring  a  tar- 
iff reform  bill  into  universal  acceptance  on  the  ostensible 
ground  that  it  had  been  originally  adopted  as  part  of  the 
organic  law  of  the  land  by  George  Washington  and  the 
constitutional  convention,  but  had  been  lost  in  the  na- 
tional archives,  and  had  only  just  come  to  light. 

A  third  strong  objection  to  the  negative  theory  of  a 
newly  written  Deuteronomy  is  that  the  nature  of  much 
of  its  contents  is  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  its  or- 
igin just  before  the  reforms  of  Josiah,  The  book  speaks 
in  a  friendly  way  of  Egypt,  33.  8.  How  different  is  the 
tone  of  Isaiah,  30.  1  sqq.  and  Jeremiah  2,  18,  36!  It  speaks 
in  a  similar  way  of  Edom,  23.  8,  and  condemns  Moab 
and  Ammon,  23.  4,  5,  while  the  case  is  just  reversed  in 
Jeremiah  49.  17,  18,  40,  47;  49.  6  !  What  was  the  appro- 
priateness, in  Josiah' s  time,  of  the  injunction  against 
the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,  Deuteronomy  20. 
16-18,  and  the  Amalekites,  25.  17-19,  and  in  favor  of 
conquests  and  war,  20.  10-20,  and  how  could  the  legis- 
lation for  the  throne,  17,  have  originated  so  late  ! 

The  account  of  the  discovery  and  the  implied  public 
knowledge  of  the  book  at  the  time  are  against  the 
theory.  The  contents  of  the  book  is  against  the  theory, 
and  in  the  fourth  place  the  means  that  it  would  have 
been  necessary  to  employ  are  against  the  supposition. 


GREAT  NATIONAL  DECEPTIONS.  105 

Either  Hilkiah,  in  order  to  do  good  in  his  reform,  was 
willing  to  plan  and  tell  a  falsehood  when  he  reported 
that  he  had  found  the  book  ;  or  the  author,  or  an  agent 
of  hiSjhad  the  book  stealthily  hidden  in  the  temple  in  the 
anticipation  that  it  would  be  discovered  and  be  ac- 
cepted as  the  work  of  Moses.  Either  supposition  is  un- 
likely. 

"It  is  certainly  not  a  light  thing  to  ask  Christian  men 
to  believe  that  the  best  men  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  act- 
ing too,  under  divine  inspiration,  could  find  no  better 
way  to  further  their  pious  design  than  to  perpetrate 
such  a  forgery"  and  then  force  it  into  acceptance  by  the 
use  of  falsehood. 

The  supposition  is  even  more  unlikely,  when  we  con- 
sider the  source  to  which  the  new  theory  is  obliged  to 
assign  the  book.  It  supposes  it  to  have  come  from  the 
prophetical  party.  But  the  prophets  are  just  the  ones 
who  are  rightly  praised  as  the  preachers  of  a  stern  mo- 
rality. They  denounce  fraud,  injustice  and  deceit  in  the 
most  vigorous  terms.  Yet  the  new  theory  makes  the 
devising  and  execution  of  this  scheme,  which,  at  the 
very  least,  verges  on  fraud,  to  be  the  result  of  their  in- 
fluence. 

But  the  supposition  seems  utterly  impossible  when  we 
look  at  the  results  it  is  said  to  have  brought  about.  It  is 
alleged  to  have  accomplished  what  centuries  of  direct 
preaching  had  failed  to  accomplish.  No  amount  of  talk,  ut- 
tered as  the  direct  message  of  Jehovah,  had  succeeded  in 
checking  the  prevalence  of  idolatry  and  wrorship  on  the 


106  CHUtER  XT.  ASSUMES   TWO 

high  places.  This  unknown  prophet,  by  the  happy  device 
of  deluding  king,  priests,  and  people  into  the  belief  that  a 
hitherto  lost  work  of  the  great  deliverer  had  come  to 
light,  introduced  a  new  era  into  the  religious  history  of 
Israel.  The  secret  never  leaked  out,  and  no  one  ever 
censured  his  conduct  until  to-day. 

The  supposition  seems  again  impossible,  when  we  con- 
sider the  nature  of  the  case,  largeness  of  the  scale,  and 
the  character  of  the  times  and  people.  Kings,  priests, 
all  the  civil  officials  and  even  the  prophetess  Huldah,  ac- 
cepted such  laws  as  are  here  found,  and  now  brought  for- 
ward for  the  first  time,  as  the  law  of  Jehovah  given 
through  Moses.  "In  an  age  of  national  decay,  when 
the  people  had  admittedly  fallen  away  into  idolatry  and 
revelled  in  it,  they  permitted  themselves  to  be  coerced 
into  reformation  by  Sk  fictional  history,  invented  for  their 
benefit,  but  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had 
known  ;  and  no  honest  man,  nor  any  devotees  of  idol- 
atry, denounced  the  'pious  fraud.'  And,  when  after 
a  long  period  of  exile  in  a  foreign  land,  a  remnant  of  the 
people,  humbled  and  impoverished,  returned  to  Pales- 
tine, they  calmly  received  more  of  this  fictional  history 
as  truth  ;  and  submitted  to  having  imposed  upon  them  a 
complete  and  minute  system  of  ordinances,  rites  and 
ceremonies,  which  was  presented  as  having  been  di- 
vinely revealed  to  Moses  long  ages  before,  but  which  in 
that  special  form  had  hitherto  been  unknown." 

It  is  true  that  the    negative  theory  eases     up    tke 
stringency  of  its  position  by  making  liberal   allowance 


GREXT   NATIOFAL   DECEPTIONS.  lOt 

for  the  preparatory  influences    of   tradition.      'There 
were  strong  and  growing  traditions   about  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  in  accordance  with  these,  and  as   a  formula- 
tion of  these,  the  two  sets  of  writings  appeared.     They 
were  only  the  crystallization  of  ideas  already  dominant." 
But  while  this  supposition  partly  relieves  the  two  schemes 
from  th6  stigma  of  immorality  and  partly  lessens  the 
difficulties  of  universal  acceptance,  it  merely  lessens  the 
latter  and  it  adds  still  other  and  more  complicated   in- 
ternal considerations. 

In  the  first  place  a  thousand  or  more  years  of  traditional 
growth  would  not  have  left  facts  such  as  those  under 
consideration,   in    the    public  mind.     And  the  growth 
would  not  have  been  of  such  a  kind  as  we  have  in  these 
books.     In  the  second  place,   the  variations  according  to 
section  and  locality  could  not   have    been  so  suddenly 
exterminated.    In  the  third  place  there  would  have  been 
some  ugly  gaps  in  Israel's  history,  for  such  tradition  to 
leap  across.     In  the  fourth  place,  the  litterateurs  would 
have  had  to  do  the  impossible  thing  of  so  revising  the 
latest  growth  that  it   should  appear  as  the   earliest  in 
time.     In  the  fifth  place  the  proposed  growth  is  not  of 
such  a  kind  as  the  people  of  Israel  would  have  originated 
or  tolerated.    In  the  sixth  place  it  is  only  to  uphold  a 
single  idea,  namely,  that  of  development  from  morality 
to  ritual  formalism,  for  which  the  new  theory  introduces 
the  growth  of  tradition,  whereas  that  idea  would  be  totally 
incompetent  to  sum  up  and  explain  the   scores  of  mflu- 
ences  and  results  at  work,  if  all  this  law  and  history  had 


108  CHAPTER  XV.  ASSUMES  TWO 

been  only  a  matter  of  tradition.  W"e  are  opening  wide 
doors  when  we  let  hypothetic  tradition  in  ;  doors  wide 
enough  to  swallow  a  hundred  positive  and  negative 
theories,  and  end  all  science  in  conjectural  confusion. 


In  the  case  of  the  other  smuggled  writings,  several 
centuries  later,  including  the  greater  part  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus  and  Numbers,  which  the  returned  Exiles  are 
said  to  have  accepted  as  coming  from  Moses,  though  they 
really  came  from  Ezra  or  one  of  his  contemporaries,  the 
difficulty  is  in  some  respects  greater.  If  Ezra  did  not 
know  of  their  recent  origin,  he  must  have  known  that  up 
to  his  own  time  no  such  laws  had  been  heard  of,  and  he 
must  have  made  investigations.  If  he  did  know  of 
their  recent  origin,  we  cannot  reconcile  the  fact  with 
either  his  or  Nehemiah's  character.  Still  less  can  we  be- 
lieve that  their  bitter  enemies,  those  who  rebelled  against 
their  rigor,  those  who  conspired  against  the  building  of 
the  wall,  and  more  especially  those  priests  and  Levites 
who  had  their  wives  and  children  torn  from  them  by 
the  new  law  against  foreign  marriages,  just  put  into  op- 
eration, would  either  themselves  quietly  and  unsuspect- 
ingly receive  any  such  code  as  of  Mosaic  origin,  or 
would  allow  others  to  do  so,  without  ventilating  the  de- 
ception. Even  where  all  the  men  of  prominence  in  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  life  have  been  a  unit  on  such  a  mat- 
ter, it  would  scarcely  be  possible  to  point  to  any  simi- 
lar instance  of  deception  on  such  a  colossal  scale.     The 


GREAT   NATIONAI    DECEPTIONS.  109 

case  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore  Decretals  comes  perhaps  near- 
est to  it.     But  it  was  less  audacious  and  less  successful. 

And  when  we  examine  the  historical  setting  into 
which  this  great  questionable  transaction  is  fitted,  and 
carefully  mark  all  that  is  said  by  the  new  critics  in  its 
favor,  we  cannot  but  feel  the  meagreness  and  the  uncon- 
vinciDg  character  of  the  history  upon  which  this  great 
conjectural  act  is  based. 

"It  is  impossible  to  admit  that  a  fraud  so  colossal 
could  have  succeeded  under  the  conditions  supposed  ; 
that  the  Jews  after  the  exile  permitted  through  deceit 
and  forgery,  to  be  imposed  on  themselves  a  Draconian 
set  of  laws  like  those  of  Leviticus  and  foreign  to  their 
mode  of  thought.  We  cannot  even  conceive  that  the 
priests  of  that  time  could  have  harbored  the  idea.  In 
order  that  a  mystification  of  this  sort  should  succeed 
the  Jewish  nation  must  have  been  composed  on  the  one, 
side  of  a  people  utterly  unlettered  and  stupified,with  no 
memory  of  the  past,  and,  on  the  other  side,  of  a  priest- 
hood sensational  and  enterprising,  all  perfectly  united 
and  incapable  of  betraying  the  secret  of  their  trickery. 
Between  these  two  extremes  there  could  have  had  been 
no  middle  class.  Such  was  not  the  case.  And  as  re- 
spects the  prophets,  can  one  conceive  the  priests  of  the 
fourth  or  second  century  B.  C.  suddenly  coming  before 
the  people  with  books  fallen  from  heaven,  containing 
prophecies  of  events  that  took  place  centuries  before,  and 
the  people,  educated  and  ignorant,  believing  that  these 
lucubrations,    ridiculous  as  ex  post  facto^  had    existed 


110  GREAT   NATIONAL  DECEFTIONS. 

for  centuries  in  the  midst  of  a  nation  without  ever  being 
known  by  them  ?  If  there  has  ever  been  a  miracle,  this 
was  one."  ^ 

In  the  last  place,  the  supposition  seems  improbable 
when  we  consider  that  there  could  have  been  no  neces- 
sity for  it.  It  was  the  prophetic  verdict  of  Iluldah  that 
confirmed  the  impressions  of  Josiah  about  the  newly  dis- 
covered law.  It  was  again  the  authority  of  Ezra,  their 
great  ecclesiastical  leader,  that  caused  the  returned  ex- 
iles to  accept  the  Levitical  code.  But  this  same  author- 
ity, which  was  sufficiently  weighty  to  overcome  the  pre- 
sumption against  the  genuineness  of  laws  proffering  to 
be  Mosaic,  if  they  made  their  first  appearance  centuries 
after  Moses'  death,  would  have  also  been  sufficiently 
weighty  to  cause  the  people  to  believe  iu  a  really  new 
legislative  revelation  as  coming  direct  from  God.  If 
they  believed  these  prophets  to  be  divinely  inspired, they 
would  have  accepted  what  the  prophets  gave  them  under 
the  latter's  own  name. 

1  De  Harlez. 


A  PIOUS   FRAUD.  Ill 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

*TpHE  negative  theory  assume^  a  Pious  Fraud  on  the 
part  of  Old  Testament  Writers.  In  addition 
to  the  introduction  of  a  non-genuine  law  on  two  great 
public  occasions,  it  involves  the  practice  of  pia  fraus  on 
the  part  of  a  great  many  individual  writers.  Hear,  for 
instance  what  Canon  Cheyne  says  of  the  writer  of  the 
books  of  Chronicles: 

"The  Chronicles  are  inspired  ...  as  even  a  sermon  might  be 
called  inspired,  i.  e.  touched  in  a  high  degree  with  the  best  spir- 
itual influences  of  the  time.  .  .  .  ,  That  there  are  some  passages 
in  Chronicles  which  have  a  specially  inspiring  quality,  and  may 
there/ore  be  called  inspired,  is  of  course  not  to  be  denied.  But 
upon  the  whole,as  Prof  .Robertson  Smith  truly  says,theChronicler 
'is  not  so  much  a  historian  as  a  Levitical  preacher  on  the  old 
history.'  ...  He  omits  some  facts  and  colours  others  in  perfect 
good  faith  according  to  a  preconceived  religious  theory,  to  edify 
himself  and  his  readers.  He  also  adds  some  new  facts,  not  on 
his  own  authority,  but  on  that  of  earlier  records,  but  we  dare 
not  say  that  he  had  any  greater  skill  than  his  neighbors  in  sift- 
ing the  contents  of  these  records,  if  indeed  he  had  any  desire 
to  do  so." 

And  the  Chronicler  is  but  a  single  one  out  of  many' 
writers,  according  to  the  new  view,  who  have  been  busy- 
ing themselves  in  colouring,  retouching,  inventing,  and 


113  CHAPTER  XVI.         ASSUMES 

composing  under  more  ancient  names,  large  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,    Judges,   Kings,   Psalms   and   many  of  the 
books  of  the  Prophets.     Indeed  to  such  an  extent  is  the 
history  idealized  and  imagined  and  adapted  by  both  the 
numerous  writers  of  the    original  documents   and  the 
various  redactors,  and  so  conflicting  are  the  assignments 
of  authorship  by  subjective  experts    of   the    negative 
school,  that  to  the  cautious  and  non-enthusiastic  look- 
er-on, it  becomes  a  question  as  to  the  value  of  any  of  it. 
"When  he  considers,  for  instance,  the  many  persons  who 
are  said  to   have  had  a  hand  in  writing  the  plagues,  or 
the  daring  and  detailed   imagination  of  the  legislator 
of  the  exile  who   invented  both  the  extraordinary  con- 
ception and  also  the  elaborate  description  of  the  taber- 
nacle, or  the  deliberate  clipping  and  falsifying  of  facts 
on  the  part  of  the  Chronicler,  himself,  when  he  rewrote 
Samuel  and  Kings  in  his  own  interests  ;  the  onlooker  is 
naturally  led  to  feel  that  the  whole  Old  Testament  is  so 
thoroughly  honeycombed  with  fiction  and  pious  fraud, 
perhaps  also  even  in  places  which  have  eluded  the  in- 
stincts of  the  scholarship   of  this  age,   that  the  entire 
mass  of  writings  have  become  valueless  for  the  purposes 
of  accurate  history,  and  are  not  worth  the  pains  which 
the  negative  scholarship  is  putting  on  them.     This  is  a 
result  which  such  critics  as  Canon  Cheyne  are  illy  pre- 
pared to  meet. 

For,  strange  to  say.  Canon  Cheyne  seems  to  think 
that  people  will  have  as  much  faith  in  a  building 
which  is   tumbling  down   on   their   heads,   and  from 


A   PIOUS   FRAUD.  113 

which  he  has  removed  the  central  pillars  of  support, 
as  they  used  to  have  in  it,  while  the  pillars  were  still 
standing  in  their  strength.  This  very  illogical  ^  bent  of 
mind  proposes  to  feel  as  confident  in  its  faith  while 
standing  upon  the  ruins  of  an  objective  Christianity,  as 
it  ever  did  in  the  well-built  structure.  Thus  Cheyne 
expressly  illustrates  this  assertion  by  saying,  for  instance, 
that  if  it  should  become  decidedly  probable  that  John 
did  not  originate  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  it  now  stands,  "I 
am  sure  that  all  truly  religious  students  would  believe, 
with  heart  and  with  head,  as  strongly  as  ever  in  the  in- 
comparable nature  and  the  divine  mediatorship  of  Jesus 
Christ.  They  would  do  so  on  the  ground  of  the  facts 
which  would  still  be  left  by  the  historical  analysis  of 
the  Gospels,  and  on  the  correspondence  between  a  sim- 
ple Christian  view  of  those  facts  and  the  needs  of  their 
own  and  of  the  Church's  life."  All  this  is  a  great  mis- 
take, and  if  it  is  fair  to  take  it  as  a  sample  of  his  critical 
judgment  and  of  that  fine  historical  sense  and  deep 
knowledge  of  human  nature  which  he  exercises  on  the 
biblical  records,'  it  is  easy  to  estimate  the  uncertain  value 
of  his  results.  For,  while  he  is  perfectly  justified  in 
speaking  confidently  of  his  own  type  of  mind,  there  are 
many  other  types  of  truly  religious  mind,  less  mystical 
and  more  hard-headed  and  scientific  in  their  deduction 
from  cold  facts,  who  could  7iot  "believe  as  strongly  as 
ever  in  the  incomparable  nature  and  the  divine  media- 
torship of  Jesus  Christ."  We  may  be  mistaken^  but 
1  That  is,  from  a  strictly  scientific  point  of  view. 


114  CHAPTER  XTT.  ASSUMES 

perhaps  Prof.  Toy,  of  Harvard,  is  a  case  in  point,  and  it 
is  perhaps  a  question  whether  Kuehnen  and  Wellhausen 
themselves  could  come  under  Canon  Cheyne's,  '*!  am 
sure,"  The  present  writer  believes  Cheyne's  judgment 
to  be  pretty  well  opposite  to  facts  as  far  as  men  in  gen- 
eral are  concerned.  For  the  authorized  use  of  pious 
fraud  has  a  tendency  to  vitiate  faith  in  divine  providence 
itself,  and  "the  facts  still  left  by  the  historical  analysis" 
then  no  longer  having  any  weight. 

The  defenders  of  the  Old  Testament  sometimes  incur 
rebuke  for  fastening  such  shocking  and  mis-leading 
epithets  as  "pious  fraud"  and  "forgery"  upon  negative 
views.  They  are  supposed  to  have  originated  these  terms 
in  dislike  and  ignorance,  and  are  held  responsible  for 
them.  But,  excepting  that  some  negative  scholars  re- 
pudiate them,  both  "pious  fraud"  and  "forgery"  are  the 
negative  theory's  own  term.  Canon  Cheyne  says,  "I 
quite  enter  into  the  dislike  of  reverent  Bible-readers  for 
the  theory  of  'pious  fraud.'  "  But  in  the  very  next  sen- 
tence he  adds,  "I  think  that  dislike  an  exaggerated  one."  ^ 
While  he  does  not  adopt  that  theory  in  all  cases,  h^  vir- 
tually uses  it  in  some.  As  to  the  term  "forgery,"  he 
brings  forward  the  test  suggested  by  Mr.  G-ore,  "viz:  to 
find  out  whether  the  writer  of  a  particular  book  could 
have  afforded  to  disclose  the  method  and  circumstances  of 
his  production."  We  differ  from  him  in  believing  that 
Hilkiah  could  have  stood  this  test  (on  the  assumption  for 
the  moment  that  Hilkiah  was  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy) ; 

I  Founders  of  Negative  Criticism,  p.  271.  Footnote. 


A  PIOUS    FRAUD.  115 

but  even  if  we  grant  that  Hilkiah  could  be  freed  from  the 
charge  of  forgery  under  this  proposed  test,  there  are  a 
number  of  other  writers,  of  whom  Cheyne  is  not  think- 
ing just  at  this  point,  who  on  his  own  theory  in  regard 
to  them,  could  not  be  freed  under  this  test,  but  would 
be  implicated. 

At  times  the  new  theory  is  far  less  blunt,  in  its  use'of 
soft  language  to  convey  the  exact  shade  of  idea  which  it 
infuses  into  or  impresses  upon  its  results.  It  will  not 
turn  certain  parts  of  writings  into  myths,  legends,  sagas, 
or  even  "inventions  of  a  later  age."  It  calls  them  ideal- 
izations of  history.  But  such  idealizations  can  have  in 
their  message  to  men  no  divine  basis,  or  warrant,  or 
promise,  or  strength,  or  comfort,  other  and  more  than 
any  other  purely  human  idealization.  Nevertheless  the 
point  is  that,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  New  Testa- 
ment comment  on  the  Old,  they  distinctly  and  promi- 
nently profess  to  have  a  direct  divine  basis  and  war- 
rant and  promise  entirely  different  from  that  of  purely 
human  writings.  And  in  order  to  cause  the  reader  to 
believe  the  more  strongly  in  that  difference  of  basis  and 
in  their  divine  warrant,  the  purely  human  writers  have 
clothed  them  with  antiquity  and  put  them  into  the  lips 
of  prophets  who  say  they  received  them  direct  from  God. 

If  our  knowledge  of  God  and  hope  of  life  eternal  rise 
from  such  a  cloudy  well,  faith  is  clean  gone  forever. 
Such  idealization  is  perfectly  permissible  as  long  as  it 
is  intended  to  be  understood  as  springing  simply  from 
the  sum  of  human  insight  and  knowledge,  but  it  is  no 


116  CHA.PTEII  XVI.  ASSUMES 

more  permissible  for  a  human  being  to  construct  an  ut- 
terance out  of  its  own  self-hood  and  then  say  to  the 
world,  "The  Lord  speaketh,  hear  ye  Him  ;"  than  it  is  for 
a  priest  to  fashion  an  idol  out  of  his  own  mental  con- 
sciousness, and  say,  "This  is  the  Lord's  image  ;  bow  ye 
down  before  it."  Indeed,  except,  in  the  quality  and 
kind  of  material  used  in  the  two  processes,  we  do  not 
see  any  difference  between  them.  The  prominent  inten- 
tional element  in  each  is  pious  fraud.  And  each  of  the 
two  minds  may  sincerely  consider  itself  inspired  to  do 
the  thing. 

To  "invent  fictitious  narratives  of  events  that  never 
happened,  to  devise  codes  of  laws  that  never  were  en- 
acted, to  compose  speeches  that  were  never  uttered,  and 
to  describe  in  detail  institutions  that  never  had  any  ex  • 
istence,"  is  proper  to  poet  or  preacher  or  writer  of  fiction. 
But  to  give  these  fictions  currency  and  authority  by 
solemnly  attributing  them  to  God  Himself,  or  to  utter 
them  as  revealed  to  men  directly  by  God  Himself,  is 
pious  fraud.  And  it  is  just  here  that  the  'legal  fiction' 
theory  introduced  by  Robertson  Smith,  breaks  down  in 
the  point  of  its  analogy.  The  analogy  is  all  right, — if  we 
leave  an  objective  God  out  of  the  Old  Testament.  But 
if  we  leave  God  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  stand- 
ing on  useless  ruins. 

The  whole  matter  is  not  a  question  as  to  whether  the 
records  have  everything  down  in  protocol  form,  even  to 
the  reproduction  of  the  least  circumstance, but  it  is  essen- 
tially a  question  as  to  whether  God's  Spirit  would  speak 


A  PIOUS   FRAUD.  11'7 

through  such  contents  and  oracles  as  have  their  origin  in 
a  pious  fraud. 

Both  in  the  numerous  different  cases  of  individual 
■writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  two  special 
cases  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  Exilian  Priest  Code, 
the  whole  matter  is  not  a  question  of  the  mere  sub- 
jective, personal  truthfulness,  or  good  intention  of 
the  writers,  but  it  is  a  question  of  the  objective  result. 
The  imposition,  for  example,  of  Deuteronomy  on  the 
people,  as  having  been  spoken  by  God  to  Moses  when 
Israel  was  entering  the  promised  land,  was  no  mere  lit- 
erary fiction,  but  a  political  maneuver,  which  can  be 
justified  by  no  principle  of  morality  except  the  Jesuitic 
one  that  "the  end  justifies  the  means."  And  when  Ca- 
non Cheyne  remarks,  "Such  conduct  as  that  of  Hilkiah 
is,  I  maintain,  worthy  of  an  inspired  teacher  and  states- 
man in  that  age  and  under  those  circumstances,"  he  is 
falling  back  we  suspect  upon  principles,  the  use  of 
which  would  have  made  him  an  adept  in  the  art  of  polit- 
ical priestcraft  in  bygone  ages,  and  the  particular  de- 
testation of  secular  rulers  and  upright  men  even  in  that 
early  day.  If  the  conduct  of  Hilkiah  was  such,  we  do 
not  see  how  it  would  have  been  possible  for  him  to  face 
king  and  people,  on  discovery  of  his  conduct,  without  loss 
of  self-respect  and  reputation,  no  matter  how  pure  his 
intentions  may  have  been.  Benevolent  intentions  are  no 
excuse  for  bad  actions. 

If  the  view  taken  above  is  correct,  it  would  similarly 
and  more  conspicuously  follow  that  the  promulgation  of 


118  CHAPTER  XVI.  Jl  PIOUS    FRAUD. 

laws  and  invented  narratives  by  the  priesthood  in  the 
time  of  the  exile  for  the  purpose  of  securing  prestige  for 
their  ecclesiastical  order  and  divine  sanction  for  their 
ceremonies,  was  also  immoral,  and  greatly  increases  the 
already  heavy  burden  which  the  new  conjecture  is  com- 
pelled to  bear  on  pure  historical  grounds. 


ESSENTIALLY  RADICAL.  119 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

npHE  Negative  Theory  is  essentially  a  Radical  one, 
and  tolerates  no  Half-Way  positions.  Its  work 
is  to  level  Scripture  downwards.  Its  temper  is,  to 
eagerly  advance  further  and  further  down  the  decline. 
For  it,  there  is  neither  rest  nor  peace  in  an  established 
position.  It  is  "a  movement."  This  is  abundantly  and 
almost  amusingly  illustrated  by  what  is  perhaps  the  most 
striking  feature  in  Canon  Cheyne's  recent  work.  In  this 
work  the  protagonist  of  the  English  criticism  plays  the 
part  of  paternal  adviser,  with  fond  and  anxious  pride,  to 
the  whole  tribe  of  negative  critics.  He  presses  upon 
them  the  repeated  exhortation  that  the  one  thing  ceed- 
ful  is  to  descend  more  hastily  to  the  bottom  levels.  He 
tells  us  that  "so  eager  and  rapid  has  boen  the  advance  of 
recent  criticism"  that  Schrader  and  Sayce,  ''both  emi- 
nent Assyriologists, "  have  been  compelled  to  drop  be- 
hind as  Old  Testament  critics."  He  pushes  and  pulls 
and  pushes,  and  cajoles,  and  expostulates,  and  laments, 
and  will  not  be  satisfied  until  he  has  brought  the  critic* 
of  more  conservative  build  down  to  his  present  level. 
He  says  Davidson  is  the  loser  by  excessive  caution,  and 
ask^  how  can  the  work  "which  we  are  eagerly  expecting 
from  him,  he  produced  without  the  aid  of  a  wisely  bold 


120  CHAPTPR  XVII.  THE  NEGATIVE   THEORY 

'higher  criticism.'  "  He  deplores  Prof.  Sayce's  position 
as  an  obstacle  to  progress  and,  throwing  out  a  compli- 
mentary sop  to  him,  asks  why  he  should  not  "seek  the 
assistance  of  the  critics." 

But  it  is  concerning  Dr.  Driver  that  is  he  is  particu- 
larly anxious,  and  for  him  he  is  overflowingly  full  of 
mild  reproach  and  strong  exhortation.  He  thinks  there 
is  a  "still  more  excellent  way"  than  Dr.  Driver's, 
namely  to  absorb  the  full  spirit  of  criticism,  and  to 
stand  beside  the  foremost  workers.  He  considers 
Driver  *'a  very  clear-headed  but  slowly  moving  scholar, 
who  stands  "a  little  aside  from  the  common  pathway  of 
critics,"  And  he  says  on  the  next  page,  "I  do  earnestly 
hope  that  he  is  not  meditating  a  step  backwards  in  de- 
ference to  hostile  archaeologists I  greatly  re- 
gret this.  To  fall  behind  Ewald,  Dillmann  and  even 
Delitzsch  and  Kittel,  is  a  misfortune  which  I  can  only 
account  for  on  the  theory  of  compromise.  1  hesitate  to 
contemplate  the  consequences  which  might  possibly  fol- 
low from  the  acceptance  of  this  view."  It  strikes  him 
that  Dr.  Driver  shows  too  much  "cautious  reserve"  and 
too  little  "courage"  in  treating  the  books  of  Samuel,  and 
that  his  remarks  on  the  Psalms  are  "not  untouched  by 
the  spirit  of  compromise."  As  for  Dr.  Sanday,  Canon 
Cheyne  thinks  that  he  "rests  for  the  moment  in  tem- 
pory  hypotheses  and  half-way  positions,  prepared  to  go 
either  forwards  or  backwards  as  the  case  may  be,  and 
disposed  to  idealize  Dr.  Driver's  hesitations  and  incon- 
sistencies" in  the  matter  of  the  Psalms.     As  for  New 


ESSENTIALLY  RADICAL.  121 

Testament  criticism  in  England,  Canon  Cheyne  does  not 
feel  that  it  is  very  hopeful  (i.  e.  from  his  point  of  view). 
He  says,  "There  is  no  doubt  much  good  work  being  done, 
but  for  want  of  a  disposition  to  learn  from  the  'higher 
critics'  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  appears  to  me  to  be, 
however  fruitful  up  to  a  certain  extent,  singularly  one- 
sided." 

Canon  Cheyne  also  tells  us  that  he  finds  it  rather  dif- 
ficult to   learn   from  English  critics,  through  their  wn- 
progressiveriess,  and  speaking  of  the  Proverbs,  exclaims, 
"Alas  !  Dr.  Driver  has  not  thrown  off  that  spirit  of  def- 
erence to   conservatism,  which,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  in- 
jures his   work  elsewhere.  .  .  Dr.    Driver  speaks  as  if 
some  of  the  Proverbs  in  two  of  the  greater  collections 
might  possibly  be  the  work  of  Solomon.     This  is  hardly 
the  way  to   cultivate  the   critical   spirit  in  young  stu- 
dents"[!]     Speaking  of  Driver  on  Job,  the  Canon  still 
continues,  "I  think  Dr.  Driver  should  have  taken  some 
steps  in  advance  of  a  book  published  in  1884.     Both  he 
and  Dr.    Davidson  have  a  way  of  stopping  short  in  the 
most  provoking  manner.     At  the  very  outset,    for  in- 
stance,   they   compromise   rather  more  than  is  strictly 
critical    [note  the  sense  in  which  this  word  is  used]  on 
the  subject  of  the  historical  existence  of  Job."     In  the 
matter  of  the  date  of  the  Song,  the  Canon  says,  "Here 
I   must  complain  that  such  a  thorough  Hebraist  as  Dr. 
Driver  hesitates   so   much,"   and  adds,   "That  I  reluc- 
tantly call  an  unwise  compromising  with  tradition." 
So   we  see  the  leader  of  the  Negative  School  himself 


121-136 


122  CH1.PTEK  XVlT.  THE  NEW  THEORY 

making  the  most  positive  assertions  that  no  half-way 
positions  are  possible  in  this  movement.  We  see  him 
standing  in  the  deep  hollow,  and  calling  out  in  tones,now 
of  pathetic  appeal  and  now  of  public  rebuke,  to  his 
more  timid  followers  holding  on  with  might  and  main 
half-way  up  the  hillside:  "Come  down  lower !  Come 
down  to  me  !" 

Moreover,  he  traces  for  us  the  stages  of  the  down- 
ward "advance."  Comparing  the  moderately  conserva- 
tive position  of  Ewald  with  the  radical  one  of  his  pupil 
Wellhausen,  he  says,  "In  one  sense  he  [Wellhausen]  has 
no  doubt  broken  with  his  master.  .  But  in  another  he 
carries  on  his  old  teacher's  work;  he  stands  where  so 
fearless  a  critic  as  Ewald  would  stand,    could   he  begin 

his  career  again Wellhausen  is  a  faithful  disciple 

of  Ewald,  whose  principles  he  does  but  apply  more  con- 
sistently, and  therefore  with  different  results."  He 
states  that  Dr.  Driver  has  now  reached  the  point^ 
which  he  himself  had  reached  in  1888  ;  and  that  while 
in  1881  Cornill  still  thought  some  psalms  were  Davidic, 
by  1891  he  had  come  to  see  that  the  whole  Psalter*  was 
post-Exilic,  which  is  essentially  Cheyne's  own  present 
position.  Though  he  takes  Prof.  Briggs  under  the 
special  shelter  of  his  wing,  he  says  he  is  bound  to  group 
him  with  Prof.  Toy  of  Harvard.  And  through  all  his 
writings  and  biographical  descriptions  we  feel  how  en- 
tirely his  sympathies  and   convictions   both  in  literary 

1  Speaking  of  the  Psalms. 

»  Except  perhaps  Psalm  89. 


ESSENTIALLY   RADICAL.  123 

methods  and   results  are  entirely  at  one  with  the  most 
pure  school  of  destructive  rationalists. 

But  here  we  come  across  an  idiosyncracy  in  Canon 
Cheyne  and  his  school.  While  he  is  at  the  bottom  of 
the  hill  as  a  philologer,  and  is  trying  to  pull  his  asso- 
ciates and  followers  down  to  his  present  place  ;  and 
while  he  is  in  intimate  association,  alliance  and  fellow- 
ship with  pure  continental  rationalism  as  a  philologer, 
he  resolutely  refuses  to  be  considered  at  the  bottom  of 
the  hill  as  a  theologian,  or  to  be  classed  with  the  pure 
rationalists  in  their  philosophy.  In  all  seriousness  and 
reverence  he  thinks  he  is  advancing  the  interest  of  ''true 
evangelical  religion,"  and  he  hopes  that  his  work  will 
tend  to  the  strengthening  of  spiritual  faith,  and  it  is  "in 
the  name  of  the  Apostle  of  Faith"  that  he  very  mod- 
estly, nobly  and  gravely  advocates  the  use  of  his  meth- 
ods. As  a  scholar  and  linguist  he  is  a  master-workman 
overturning  every  wall  and  stone  in  the  foundations  of 
Christianity,  and  trying  his  best  to  show  that  only  or- 
dinary human  and  natural  principles  have  been  opera- 
tive in  this  ancient  historical  structure.  But  as  a  re- 
ligious man,  he  is  still  a  firm  believer;  on  the  strength  of 
some  things  he  still  finds  in  these  foundations.  As  an  in- 
vestigator, he  eliminates  the  supernatural;  as  a  Christian, 
he  finds  the  supernatural  still  present  in  some  unex- 
plained way.  Moreover  the  existence  of  his  Christian 
faith  is  no  barrier  whatever  to  closest  fellowship  and 
sympathy  with  those  who  draw  the  rationalistic  theo- 
logical inference,  and,  from  the  same  standing  ground  as 


124  CHl.PTElt   XVII.  THE   NEW   THEORY 

Cheyne,  ridicule  the  existence  of  such  Christian  faith. 
The  mode  of  contact  in  him  between  faith  and  its  ob- 
ject appears  to  be  entirely  mystical,  and  it  seems  strange 
to  see  a  keenly  rationalistic  head  illogically  receiving  its 
spiritual  life  blood  from  the  outflow  of  a  mystical  heart. 

The  same  ''more  consistent  application  of  princi- 
ples" which  made  Wellhausen  a  better  exponent  of 
Ewald's  principles  than  Ewald  himself ;  and  the  same 
thorough-going  premises  in  theology  which  Cheyne 
wishes  Driver  to  apply  in  history  and  linguistics,  ought 
in  all  fairness  to  the  principles  be  applied  by  Cheyne 
himself  to  the  theological  field.  Then  he  would  be 
where  his  principles  belong,  in  the  camps  of  rationalism, 
and  would  be  less  dangerous  to  the  Christian  faith  he  so 
earnestly  hopes  he  is  serving.  And  we  feel  rather  cer- 
tain that  it  is  just  in  those  camps  that  his  whole  follow- 
ing and  his  successors  will  ultimately  land.  ^  The  Cheyne 
of  1888  is  not  the  Cheyne  of  1894,  as  he  himself  admits  ; 
and  with  time,  and  with  the  spirit  of  eager  and  ardent 
"advance"  to  impel  them,  the  principles  will  work 
themselves  out  to  a  finish  in  that  class  of  mind. 

This  statement  will  be  probably  be  contested  with 
considerable  feeling,  by  the  whole  school  of  intermedi- 
ate critics,  so  active  and  popular  now,  who  are  trying  to 
combine    a  reconstructed   Old  Testament  with  devout 

I  The  science  of  Comparative  Religion  will  welcome  their  ar- 
rival, and  assign  the  Old  Testament  a  place  in  its  catalogue  of 
religions,  from  which  by  comparative  methods  of  elimination  it 
hopes  to  educe  the  ultimate  religion  of  rational  humanity. 


ESSENTIALLY   RADICAL.  125 

faith  in  Christ.     Many  of  them  believe  it  to  be  both  en- 
tirely possible,  and  also  more  satisfactory,  to  accept  the 
principle  of  historical  development  in  the  Old  Testament, 
without  denying  the  authority  of  Christ  and  the  princi- 
ple of  the  supernatural  in  the  New  Testament.     Indeed 
they  become  exceedingly  restive  when  it  is  asserted  that 
these  two  principles  have  any  destructive  bearing  on  each 
other.     They  consider  the  argument  from|the  New  Tes- 
tament as  to  the  character  of  the  Old  as  being  illegiti- 
mate, and  feel  that  the  opposition  to  the  new  views  of  the 
Old  Testament  comes  chiefly  from  narrowness  and  igno- 
rance.    They  feel  that  defenders  of  the  orthodox  view 
are  "laying  in  a  handicap  on  both  science  and  religion." 
The  irritation  in  their  souls  probably  arises  from  a  com- 
plication of  causes. 

Beyond  question  they  have  a  grievance,  in  being  ham- 
pered, and  held  back,  and  criticised  and  throttled  by  the 
orthodox  world.  Such  treatment  is  certainly  sufficient 
reason  for  great  impatience,  from  their  point  of  view. 
But  they  should  remember  that  there  is  another  point  of 
view.  Orthodoxy  realizes  how  precious'to  itself  and  to 
the  world  that  is  which  they  determine  to  destroy.  Or- 
thodoxy realizes  that  their  whole  theory  is  still  but^hy- 
pothesis,and  as  it  believes,  unprovable  hypothesis,  audit 
knows  how  eager  theyjare  to  impregnate  young  and  un- 
formed minds  with  the  theory,  and  if  orthodoxy  has  the 
same  right  to  act  on  its  principles, as  they^have  on  theirs, 
they  certainly  should  not  be  impatient*when  it  acts.  If 
they  were  in  the  position  of  orthodoxy,  it  is  quite  certain 


126  CHAPTER   XVII.  THE  NEW   THEORY 

that  they  would  be  not  a  whit  more  tolerant  and  they 
might  be  much  more  intolerant  than  it  is.  Again,  ortho- 
doxy knows  only  too  well  how  thafeagerness  to  advance" 
which  puts  forth  so  many  changing  conjectures  in  the 
name  of  religion,  is  very  hurtful  to  all  religion.  Men 
cannot  change  their  religion  a  number  of  times,  and  yet 
retain  it.  It  is  either  stability,  or  infidelity.  And  in 
any  case,  on  the  common  sense  question  of  the  religious 
value  of  the  new  results,  the  judgment  of  men  who  are 
not  scholars  has  both  rights  and  weight. 
No  doubt  too  these  scholars  feel  that  their  tendencies 
and  their  position  are  misrepresented  even  in  works  such 
as  the  one  before  the  reader.  But  that  is  inevitable.  It 
is  the  price  of  fame.  It  is  the  price  of  reform.  When 
Luther  was  misrepresented,  he  did  not  sit  down  and 
whine  about  it. 

No  doubt,  again,  that  these  English  scholars  especially 
in  past  years  have  felt  the  lack  of  appreciation   and  the 
condemnation  visited  upon  them  by  the  great   bulk  of 
Christians.     But  they  have  not  become  martyrs   yet  for 
their  convictions.     And  if  they  had,   what   a    glorious 
privilege  to  have  possessed  !    Is  it  not  a  privilege  to   lay 
down   one's  life  for  the  truth  ?     And  is  not  truth  more 
precious    than    life?    If    these    men    are    really    look- 
ing  unto   Jesus,    as   the    author    and  finisher   of  their 
faith,  ought  they  be  so  restless  under  tribulation.  Some 
of  these  advance  guards  of  the  eternal  truth  seem  to  be 
in  the  battle  with  a  heavenly  glory  in  one  eye,  and   a 
worldly  aim  in  the  other.     None  of  them  have   resisted 


ESSENTIALLY   KADICAL.  127 

yet  unto  blood.  It  is  scarcely  reasonable  to  expect  to 
appropriate  the  martyr's  crown,  without  bearing  the 
martyr's  cross.  And  much  of  the  excitement  that  has 
been  stirred  up  in  the  Christian  world  of  late  has  per- 
haps come  from  the  fact  that  several  of  the  eagerly  ad- 
vancing defenders  of  the  new  truth,  never  learned  to 
sing,  with  any  real  inwardness, 

"Must  I  be  carried  to  the  skies, 

On  flowery  beds  of  ease. 
While  others  fought  to  win  the  prize, 

And  sailed  through  bloody  seas  ?" 

There  is  probably  however  still  another  cause  that  ren- 
ders some  of  the  intermediate  critics  to  be  both  hesita- 
ting and  restless.  The  fact  that  there  are  men  like  Drs. 
Driver  and  Davidson  and  Smith  and  Cheyne  and  Gore, 
who  both  accept  the  theory  of  the  negative  criticism,  and 
yet  may  be  said  to  be  believers  in  prophecy  and  possibly 
in  miracle,  shows  how  there  are  now,  as  there  have  al- 
ways been,  great  scholars  remaining  in  an  inconsistent 
midway  position  between  two  things  mutually  exclusive 
of  each  other.  These  critics  have  adopted  the  theories 
and  methods  of  the  negative  school  without  accepting 
the  grounds  on  which  the  theories  are  based.  They  deny 
the  validity  of  the  one  great  forceful  consideration  which 
renders  these  theories  and  ideas  and  positions  really 
cogent.  They  admit  the  supernatural,  but  not  in  such  a 
sense  as  the  Record  itself  really  requires. 

Though  they  are  clinging  with  might  to  the  heart  of 
the  Christian  faith,  there  is  likely  to  be  a  lurking  uneasi- 


128  ESSENTIALLY  RADICAL. 

ness  for  fear  that  their  tendency  may  after  all  be  verging 
away  from  faith,  and  that  consistency  may  after  all  draw 
them  down  from  their  present  unstable  midway  position 
into  the  abyss  of  unbelieving  rationalism.  Both  history 
and  instinct  can  scarcely  fail  to  suggest  to  them  the  im- 
possibility in  such  a  movement,  of  establishing  a  bottom 
half  way  down  hill.  Both  must  suggest  the  insecurity 
of  all  the  considerations  by  which  they  seek  to  avoid 
the  conclusion  pressed  upon  them,  and  which  their 
bolder  and  less  conservative  brethren  on  the  continent 
at  once  accepted.  It  may  be  only  the  forces  of  their 
early  education  and  environment  that  are  holding  their 
reason  in  check,  and  temporarily  preventing  the  land- 
slide. Such  a  thought  is  uncomfortable  in  the  extreme, 
and  one  from  which  they  would  naturally  shrink.  With- 
out therefore  pressing  its  irritating  edge  inwards  any 
further,  we  turn  to  the  negative  theory  as  such,  in  its 
own  thorough -going  essence. 


DENIAL   OP   SUPEKNATURAL.  129 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

'X*HE  Secret  Stronghold  of  the,'  negative  theory  is 

the  ever-prpsent  and  ever-pressing  Desire  of  the 
intellect  to  Deny  the  existence  of  the  supernatural 

in  history.  The  great  problem  which  the  radical  critics 
set  themselves  to  solve  is  to  account  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment without  admitting  the  presence  of  the  supernat- 
ural. The  strictly  naturalistic  method,  governed — 
some  one  has  said — by  "the  greatest  of  modern  tyrants, 
the  idea  of  development,"  neither  needs  nor  finds  a  God 
in  Israel.  Jehovah  was  a  local  deity  of  Israel,  with  no- 
more  real  existence  than  Baal  or  Chemosh.  Israel's  re- 
ligion did  not  essentially  differ  from  that'of  Moab,  Am- 
mon,  and  Edom, Israel's  nearest  kinsfolk  and  neighbors. 
Narratives  of  miraculous  events  are  mere  legends,  often 
recorded  for  unworthy  ends. 

These  are  the  fundamental  assumptions*that  underlie 
and  are  really  at  the  bottom  of  the'  whole  negative 
theory  as  such.  They  form  its'^philosophical  basis.  Its 
ultimate  spring,  its  ' '/6>ns  e<  (?W76>, "  is  the  rationalistic 
motive.  This  is  a  deeper  and  more  final  motive  even  than 
the  love  for  historic  truth.  In  its  essence  and  inner- 
most spirit,  the  problem  of  the  newer  criticism  is  not  a 
mere  literary   problem.     It   is  the, question  of  "a  philo- 


130  CHAPTER  XVIII.  A   DESIRE   TO 

sophical  theory  ia  conflict  with  the  Biblical  view  of  God 
and  His  working  in  the  world."  It  is  not  a  question  of 
letters,  or  of  literary  analysis.  There  is  a  spirit  back  of 
and  beneath  the  literary  analysis  that  gives  rise  to  and 
urges  the  latter  on.  This  spirit  occasionally  exists  in 
Christian  minds,  side  by  side  with  faith,  and  brings  the 
believer  into  great  mental  conflicts.  But  where  the  hu- 
man mind  for  any  reason  comes  to  a  "practical  denial  by 
logical  rationalism  of  the  special  and  immediate  work- 
ing of  God  in  the  world  and  the  progress  of  events,"  he 
also  comes,  a  few  steps  further  on,  to  the  explaining 
away  of  the  supernatural  in  Scripture,  and  finally  to  a 
denial  of  the  possibility  and  fact  of  miraculous  Divine 
revelation. 

It  is  because  of  this  philosophical  theory  behind  the 
literary  problem,  and  because  it  appears  to  veil  itself 
so  innocently  in  questions  of  literature  and  history, 
that  evangelical  orthodoxy  'scents  danger  from  afar' 
and  strenuously  refuses  to  have  anything  to  do  with 
the  new  ways.  It  is  true  enough  as  the  critics  right- 
eously maintain,  that  the  ways  may  be  harmless  and 
in  the  line  of  progress;  but  it  is  not  less  true  that 
behind  the  ways  there  is  something  deadly.  ^  In  and  by 
itself,  it  might  really  be  a  very  small  matter  as  to  who 
wrote  many  of  the  Psalms,  or  this  and  that  part  of  the 

1  There  is  particularly  one  great  teacher  and  scholar  here  in 
America  who  under  the  guise  of  simple  grammatical  and  histo- 
rical teaching  insidiously  infuses  rationalism  into  the  minds 
of  students. 


DENY   THE    SUPERNATURAL.  131 

prophets  ;  but  it  becomes  a  vital  matter  because  of  the 
rationalistic  presuppositions  which  are  made  the  basis 
of  the  literary  and  historical  determination.  For  in- 
stance, whether  there  are  one  or  two  Isaiahs  may  not 
be  particularly  important,  but  the  important  thing  is 
that  the  negative  criticism  desires  to  establish'two  or 
more  Isaiahs  in  order  to  prevent  the  original  Isaiah  from 
having  predicted  anything  which  happened  long  before 
his  time.  The  fact  in  itself  may  be  a  very  little  thing. 
But  the  determination  of  the  negative  criticism  to  es- 
tablish the  fact  in  order  to  deny  the  prophet  the  outlook 
of  any  more  distant  prophetic  prevision,  than  the  na- 
tural power  of  a  gifted  man  to  foresee  events  which 
would  be  likely  to  take  place  in  a  very  few  years,  causes 
the  little  thing  to  assume  a  very  fundamental  and  im- 
portant aspect. 

"In  rationalism,  reason  is  the  sole  arbiter.  What 
reason  cannot  comprehend  and  accept  can  never  form 
part  of  the  rationalist  s  conviction.  His  intellect  is  con- 
sistent throughout.  To  him,  Scripture  is  like  any  other 
book.  He  accepts  it,  only  when  it  agrees  with  his  opin- 
ions, and  then  only  as  an  illustration  and  affirmation, not 
as  an  authority.  "1  Rationalism  has  always  been  a  ten- 
dency in  the  history  of  the  human  mind,  and  of  Christ- 
ianity. Its  course  has  generally  been  from  orthodoxy 
to  liberal  Christianity  ;  from  liberal  Christianity  to  reli- 
gion in  general,  "from  religion  in  general  to  mere  moral- 
ty,  and  finally  from  morality  to  eudaemonism. "     After 

1  Fr.  V.  Reinhard. 


132  CHAPTER   XTIII.  A  DESIRE   TO 

it  is  once  fully  seen  that  the  negative  theory  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  Higher  Criticisra  in  general  are 
not  something  absolutely  new,  and  are  in  their  ani- 
mating spirit  but  the  tail-end  of  a  well  known  way  of 
thinking  which  has  been  coursing  restlessly  through 
all  the  centuries,  much  of  its  attractive  power  will 
have  disappeared.  It  will  sink  to  the  position  of  a  sin- 
gle joint  in  a  long  articulated  and  ever  oscillatmg  series 
of  mental  movements. 

The  spirit  that  brings  the  negative  theory  to  the  front 
today  is  the   spirit  that  of  old  threw  up  Pelagius,  and 
Duns  Scotus  and  Abelard  and  the  sceptics  oi  Paiaccnic 
culture,  and   Erasmus   and  the  Italian  Humanists,  and 
partly   perhaps  Richard  Simon.     After  the  Reformation 
and   the  Renaissance  had  caused  historico-critical  inves- 
tigations to  be  possible,  and  they  began  to  spring   up  ;  a 
new  and  modern  type  of  this  rationalistic  spirit  drew  them 
to  itself  as  its  handmaid,  and  the   resulting  union   gave 
rise  to  a  whole  progeny  of  movements,  including  the  ac- 
tual series  by  which  we  are  still  affected. 

Des  Cartes  was  the  father  of  modern  philosophy.  His 
syllogism  of  universal  doubt  could  not  help  invading 
the  realm  of  theology.  Its  rationalistic  animus  was 
quickly  carried  to  English  soil  and  the/ school  of  the 
English  deists  sprang  up.  Among  these  deists  rational- 
ism first  touched  the  Old  Testament  Scripture  in  Hobbes' 
Leviathan.  Hobbes  died  in  167d.  At  the  same  time^n 
the  continent  Spinoza,  who  died  in^lG??,  in  his  Tracta- 
tus   Theologico-politicus  openly  attacked  the  authority 


DENY  THE   SUPERNATURAL.  133 

and  genuineness  of  Scripture.  In  1753  Astruc  the 
French  physician  published  his  book  against  the  spirit 
of  rationalistic  criticism  and  in  defense  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  this  book  the  docu- 
mentary theory  of  the  Pentateuch  originated,  being  sub- 
sequently appropriated  by  the  leaders  of  the  rationalistic 
side  for  their  purposes. 

The  soil  of  Germany  was  at  this  time  being  rendered 
rich  and  ready  for  the  reception  of  the  rationalistic  crit- 
ical seed.  The  great  Prussian  Frederick  had  surrounded 
himself  with  free-thinkers  from  France,  and  the  self- 
sufficient  followers  of  an  extreme  Wolfian  philosophy 
brought  on  the  period  of  superficial  rationalistic  illumi- 
nation. Michaelis  of  Goettingen  prepared  the  way  for 
rationalism  in  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
Ernesti  did  the  same  in  the  exegesis  of  the  New. 
Ernesti  laid  it  down  as  a  leading  law  that  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures  was  to  be  similar  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  a  profane  author. 

Then  came  Semler.  His  restlessly  sceptical  mind  be- 
came the  instrument  of  the  rationalistic  spirit.  Though 
privately  devout,  by  undermining  the  genuineness  of 
the  biblical  writings,  he  "reaped  a  whirlwind,  at  which 
he  himself  trembled."  From  him  there  went  forth 
swarms  of  rationalists  to  occupy  the  chairs  and  pulpits 
in  Protestant  Germany.  At  this  time  Lessing  published 
the  Wolfenhuettler  Fragments  which  attributes  the  in- 
troduction of  Christianity  to  bold  deception. 

Meanwhile  Eichhorn,  who  was  a  pupil    of  Michaelis, 


134  CHAPTEB  XVIII.  A   DESIRE   tO 

began  to  exert  a  great  influence  on  the  trend  of  thought, 
approaching  the  Biblical  writings  through  the  portals  of 
Oriental  literature.  Eichhorn's  friend  Herder,  and  Her- 
der's friend  Lessing,  contributed  greatly  towards  toning 
down  the  rationalistic  spirit,  which  had  been  largely  re- 
inforced by  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution, 
into  a  cosmopolitan  humanitarianism,  which  began  to 
act  widely  in  literary  and  in  theological  circles.  This 
new  critical  feeling,  in  conjunction  with  the  introduction 
of  comparative  methods  into  the  study  of  philology  and 
relierion,  caused  the  books  of  the  Bible  to  be  viewed  as 
merely  human  compositions  like  the  sacred  books  of 
other  religions.  To  prove  this  to  be  the  case  with  the 
New  Testament,  the  learned  Ferdinand  Christian 
Baur,  in  our  century,  made  his  famous  effort  of  a  life- 
time, being  at  last  unsuccessful ;  while  his  pupil  Strauss 
and  the  French  scholar  Renan  undertook  a  similar  task 
in  respect  to  the  life  of  Christ. 

Meantime  Geseuius  had  been  absorbing  the  rational- 
istic spirit  from  his  teachers  Henke  and  Eichhorn,  and 
was  combining  his  cold  and  almost  frivolously  sceptical 
criticism  with  accurate  wealth  of  lexicographical  and 
archaeological  learning.  De  Wette,  in  his  early  training, 
was  being  steeped  in  rationalism  of  the  worst  kind. 
Ewald,  influenced  by  Eichhorn,  and  drawn  to  the 
Arabic  and  Persian  languages,  came  upon  the  scene 
to  turn  attention  to  Old  Testament  criticism.  Vatke 
and  Hupfelt  followed.  Vatke' s  father  was  a  rational- 
ist, and  so  was  Hupfelt's.    Hupfelt  was  probably  the 


Deny  the  supernjlturjll.  135 

first  to  proceed  on  the  great  idea  that  the  religion  of 
Israel  was  a  natural  development.  Kuehnen  was  study- 
ing under  his  teacher,  the  rationalist  Scholten,  and  was 
forming  those  rationalistic  theological  convictions  which 
probably  drew  him  to  Old  Testament  Criticism.  Well- 
hausen  left  Ewald  and  followed  Kuehnen.  Robertson 
Smith  imbibed  from  both,  and  Canon  Cheyne,  taught  of 
Ewald,  was  "fascinated,"  as  he  admits,  by  Kuehnen. ^ 
So  we  see,  that  with  a  few  exceptions,  the  really  repre- 
sentative negative  Old  Testament  scholars  have  either 
been  bred  in  rationalistic  surroundings  or  have  been 
strongly  under  their  influence. " 

Within  the  last  half  century,  the  greatest  new  philo- 
sophical idea  since  the  days  of  Des  Cartes,  has  become 
a  dominating  presence  in  science,  literature  and  relig- 
ion, and  it  is  the  use  of  this  idea,  applied  to  Old  Tes- 
tament results  and  methods  as  left  by  Ewald,  that  has 
brought  forth  the  negative   higher  criticism  of  to-day. 

1  It  is  to  the  present  chapter  that  the  footnote  in  the  Intro- 
duction, page  17,  refers.  To  the  earlier  writers  mentioned  in  the 
Introduction,  Knobel  should  have  heen  added,  and  Budde, 
Duhm  and  Kittel  might  have  heen  added  to  the  later  ones. 

a  When  Cheyne  remarks  that  three  such  men  as  Keuss,  Vatke 
and  Kuehnen,  reaching  the  same  result  by  different  paths,  are 
not  likely  to  have  been  entirely  mistaken,  he  fails  to  remember 
that  all  three  men  were  infected  by  the  same  literary  atmos- 
phere of  the  age ;  all  three  had  the  same  literature  and  history 
behind  them ;  all  three  were  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  moulded 
by  rationalistic  training,  and  all  three,  in  spite  of  their  greatly 
differing  natures,  had  that  bent  of  intellect  to  which  the  ra- 
tionalistic explanation  would  probably  alone  appear  plausible. 


136  CHAPTER   XTIII.  A  DESIRE   TO 

The  universal  adoption  to-day  of  the  principle  of  evo- 
lution, as  a  starting  point  for  the  negative  criticism  is 
proof  that  the  latter  has  dogmatic  interests  at  stake,  and 
not  merely  scientific  interests.  These  dogmatic  inter- 
ests are  the  principles  of  rationalism.  More  important 
than  the  facts  themselves,  to  the  negative  criticism,  is 
the  ability  to  show,  that  as  all  religion  is  a  natural  de- 
velopment through  various  stages  to  higher  forms,  so 
also  it  is  the  case  with  the  religion  of  Israel.  And  as 
the  history  we  have  in  the  Old  Testament  shows  a  higher 
spirituality  at  the  very  start  than  afterward  in  its  course, 
that  history  must  be  imaginary  and  unhistorical  for  the 
most  part, — a  projection  from  a  later  age  into  the  past. 
To  establish  this  dogma,  not  to  apply  a  purely  scientific 
method,  is  the  point  for  which  the  negative  theory  exists. 
The  facts  are  not  the  thing  in  itself,  but  the  dogma  is. 

The  dogmatic  working  of  this  intellectual  bias  is 
seen  very  clearly  when  the  results  it  has  reached  in 
Biblical  criticism  are  placed  side  by  side  with  the  results 
reached  by  it  in  reference  to  the  other  historical  monu- 
ments of  the  race.  The  incongruity  of  the  comparison 
is  striking.  On  the  one  side  the  most  distant  antiquity, 
with  great  facility  and  against  probability,  has  at  least 
until  very  recently  been  accorded  to  works  like  the 
Aveuta  and  the  Rig-Veda.  On  the  other  side  the  great- 
est endeavors  are  made  to  bring  down  the  date  of  the 
composition  of  the  Bible  as  near  as  possible  to  our  own 
times.  On  the  one  side  everything  is  interpreted  in  fa- 
vor of  the  sacred  books  of  India  or  Eran,  and,  on  the 


DENY  THE   SUPERNATURAL.  137 

other,  everything  is  claimed  against  the  sacred  books  of 
the  Jews.  This  is  due  to  the  dogmatism  of  the  intel- 
lectual bias. 

From  such  a  survey  of  the  higher  criticism  in  its  his- 
torical connection,  it  may  perhaps  be  seen  that  the  neg- 
ative theory  of  the  Old  Testament  is  another  of  the  nu- 
merous waves  thrown  up  by  the  ever  rushing  current  of 
rationalism,  and  it  is  probably  within  rational  limits  to 
conjecture  that  though  the  same  old  underlying  spirit  of 
rationalism  will  perennially  be  renewing  the  old  conflict 
with  faith  from  a  different  point  of  attack,  yet  its  pre- 
sent type,  incarnate  in  the  negative  higher  criticism,  will 
disappear  or  be  displaced— leaving  some  results  to  en- 
rich the  race— ,  and  men  will  be  wondering  how  its  fal- 
lacies were  ever  able  to  enthrall  the  powerful  minds  it 
held  in  its  embrace.  Bishop  Lightfoot,  speaking  of  the 
rationalistic  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  from  the 
view  of  the  long  time  perspective,  puts  the  matter  in  the 
following  language: 

"There  is  at  least  a  presumption  (though  in  individ- 
ual cases  it  may  prove  false  on  examination)  that  the 
historical  sense  of  seventeen  or  eighteen  centuries  is 
larger  and  truer  than  the  critical  insight  of  one  late  half- 
century.  The  idols  of  our  cave  never  present  themselves 
in  a  more  alluring  form  than  when  they  appear  as  'the 
spirit  of  the  age. '  It  is  comparatively  easy  to  resist  the 
fallacies  of  past  times,  but  it  is  most  difficult  to  escape  the 
infection  of  the  intellectual  atmosphere  in  which  we 
lire.     I  ask  myself,  for  instance,  whether  one  who  lived 


1S8  DENIAL  OP   THE  SUPERNATURAL. 

in  the  age  of  the  Rabbis  would  have  been  altogether 
right  in  resigning  himself  to  the  immediate  current  of 
intellectual  thought,  because  he  saw  or  seemed  to  see, 
that  it  was  setting  strongly  in  one  direction.  .  .  .  The 
comparison  is  not  without  its  use.  Here  were  men  em- 
inently learned,  painstaking,  minute  ;  eminently  ingen- 
ious also,  and  in  a  certain  sense  eminently  critical.  In 
accumulating  and  assorting  facts— such  facts  as  lay 
within  their  reach — and  in  the  general  thoroughness  of 
their  work,  the  Rabbis  of  Jewish  exegesis  might  well 
bear  comparison  with  the  Rabbis  of  neologian  criticism. 
They  reigned  supreme  in  their  own  circles  for  a  time  ; 
their  work  has  not  been  without  its  fruits  ;  many  useful 
suggestions  have  gone  to  swell  the  intellectual  and  moral 
inheritance  of  later  years  ;  but  their  characteristic  teach- 
ing, which  they  themselves  would  have  regarded  as 
their  chief  claim  to  immortality,  has  long  since  been 
consigned  to  oblivion.  It  might  be  minute  and  search- 
ing, but  it  was  conceived  in  a  false  vein  ;  it  was  essen- 
tially unhistorical,  and  therefore  it  could  not  live.  The 
modern  negative  school  of  criticism  seems  to  me  equally 
perverse  and  unreal,  though  in  a  different  way ;  and 
therefore  I  anticipate  for  it  the  same  fate." 

I 


OUR  LORD^'S   TEACHING.  139 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

»TpHE  Conclusions  of  the  negative  theory  affect  the 
Authority  of  our  Lord's  teaching.  In  a  previous 
chapter^  it  has  been  shown  that  the  new  theory  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  opposed  by  the  direct  testimony  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  there  is  an  additional  and  deeper 
point.  It  is  the  fact  that  Christ's  own  personal  author- 
ity is  involved  by  the  new  theory. 

We  fully  realize  the  danger  in  reasoning  on  a  point  of 
this  kind.  We  know  how  often  and  how  wrongfully 
and  harmfully  the  authority  of  Christ  has  been  set  up, 
in  apriori  argument  against  that  which  was  subsequently 
found  to  be  the  truth  ;  and  which,  properly  understood, 
was  not  in  conflict  with  Christ.  We  know  how  this 
brings  injury  to  the  cause  of  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and 
pushes  seekers  after  the  truth  towards  unbelief,  on  the 
other.  We  do  not  therefore  desire  to  use  this  argument 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  shut  off  investigation  or  any 
right  of  criticism.  We  appreciate  all  the  force  there  is 
in  the  query  of  the  newer  critics,  "Does  the  language  of 
our  Lord  forever  debar  a  Christian  scholar  from  raising 
the  question  whether  the  Pentateuch  is  a  composite  doc- 

1  See  p. 47. 


140  CHAPTER   XIX.  AFFECT 

ument  or  wholly  the  work  of  Moses  ?"  We  know  the 
danger  of  taking  any  passage  of  Scripture  to  teach  that 
which  it  is  originally  not  intended  to  teach  ;  and  the  dif- 
ficulty of  the  human  interpreter  in  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  teaching  of  Scripture,  and  his  own  inference 
from  that  teaching. 

Nevertheless,  we  may  ask  the  critics  the  same  ques- 
tion that  they  ask  us.  "Does  the  historical  spirit  of  in- 
vestigation presume  for  itself  such  certainty  as  to  for- 
ever debar  a  Christian  scholar  from  raising  the  question 
whether  its  conclusions  are  not  sweeping  away  the  au- 
thority of  our  Lord,  and  whether  it  is  not  in  danger  of 
teaching  too  rapidly,  as  facts,  such  damaging  conclu- 
sions, before  they  are  shown  to  be  necessary  and  proven?" 

It  is  with  the  feeling  that  equal  rights  must  be 
granted  to  hoth  sides  in  this  case,  that  we  proceed  to 
state  our  own  side,  which  we  believe  to  be  so  strong. 

It  is  admitted  that  our  Lord  accepted  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  it  stands.  It  was  part  of  God's  Word  for  him 
and  his  disciples.  Both  the  Law  and  the  Psalms  and  the 
Prophets  were  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  the  most  im- 
portant teachings  of  Jesus,  and  one  can  not  make  the  whole 
originate  in  pious  fraud,  and  yet  say  that  he  was  ''filled 
with  grace  and  truth."  He  gave  no  hint  either  in  his  public 
teaching  or  in  his  confidential  revelations  to  his  disciples 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  not  authentic.  "He  blamed, 
indeed,  the  sceptics  of  His  day — the  Sadducees — for  their 
attitude  towards  Scripture.  And  in  so  far  as  the  Scribes 
were    accredited  teachers  of  the  law  of  Moses   (apart 


OUR  lord's  teaching.  141 

from  their  traditions),  He  exhorted  the  people  to  'do  and 
observe'  what  they  said." 

At  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministry,  and  under  the 
solemn  circumstances  connected  with  the  great  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  our  Lord  distinctly  specijS.ed  His  own  re- 
lation to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  es- 
pecially to  the  Law,  in  what  is  really  the  text  of  the 
first  part  of  the  sermon.  He  says:  "Think  not  that  I 
come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets  :  I  came  not  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,— see 
how  solemnly  and  strongly  he  makes  the  statement, — 
"till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  tittle  shall 
in  no  wise  pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  things  be  ac- 
complished." 

He  could  not  have  spoken  more  forcibly  or  clearly. 
He  does  not  mean  merely  the  moral  law,  for  the  word  is 
used  which  in  all  similar  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment means  the  whole  Mosaic  law — "the  books  of  the 
law,  as  every  Jew  of  the  days  of  our  Lord  would  have 
understood  this  term  to  include  and  signify." 

He  came  to  set  forth  in  his  own  person,  in  deeds  and 
words,  the  whole  priestly  and  moral  law  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  so  well  shows. 
But  the  new  theory  maintains  that  the  greater  part  of 
this  law, — of  every  jot  and  tittle  of  which  the  Saviour 
speaks  so  seriously— was  composed  of  the  "idealizations 
of  the  pious  Jew  of  the  Exile."  The  new  theory  is 
responsible  for  making  Christ  at  least  seem  to  stultify 
himself  here. 


143  CHA.PTER  XIX,  AFFECTS 

It  has  not  yet  successfully  shown  how  it  can  hold  to 
the  authority  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  to  the  post- 
exilian  origin  of  the  law. 

Christ  in  his  ministry  went  so  far  as  to  distinctly 
found,  or  illustrate  or  corroborate  his  teaching  on  both 
the  deeds  and  the  writings  of  Moses.  In  arguing  with 
the  Sadducees  in  regard  to  the  resurrection,  he  said, 
"Now  that  the  dead  are  raised  up,  even  Moses  showed  at 
the  bush.''^''-  He  said,  again,  ''If  you  believe  not  the 
writings  of  Moses,  how  shall  you  believe  my  words?"* 
He  illustrated  his  own  redemptive  work  on  the  Cross 
to  Nicodemus,  that  master  in  Israel,  by  saying  that  it 
should  be  "As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness," which  certainly  presumes  both  a  historical  mira- 
cle of  healing  and  a  historical  personality  to  lift  the  ser- 
pent up  as  redeemer.  When  the  Jews  appeal  to  the 
manna  in  the  desert  as  a  miracle  given  to  their  fathers,  he 
does  not  discredit  the  historical  fact  of  the  miracle,  in 
order  to  strengthen  by  contrast  his  own  greatness,  but 
he  admits  its  reality,  and  even  introduces  the  personality 
of  Moses,  in  the  words,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Moses  gave  you  not  that  bread  from  heaven." 

"Did  he  leave  his  followers  under  the  delusion  that 
mythical  was  actual  history  ?  Did  he  permit  his  apostles 
to  go  forth  and  teach  this  mythical  history  as  truth, 
stamped  with  the  impress  of  his  authority  ?  Is  this 
what  men  would  have  expected  from  him,  on  consider- 

1  Luke  20,  37. 

2  John  5,  47. 


OUR  lord's  teaching.  143 

iiig  his  life  and  character?"  "Is  this  in  accord  with  ra- 
tional ideas  of  what  a  divine  revelation  should  be,— to 
conceive  of  it  as  given  in  such  a  form  that  fact  in  it  can 
hardly  be  distinguished  from  a  fable.  Is  this  a  reason- 
able hypothesis  that  through  Christ  men  were  not  en- 
lightened as  to  the  true  nature  of  the  elder  revelation, 
but  that  the  discovery  of  this  was  left,  after  the  lapse 
of  centuries,  to  men  who  either  altogether  rejected  the 
idea  of  revelation,  or  who  sought  to  explain  away  the 
supernatural  in  Scripture,  i.  e.  to  deny  really  that  it  is  a 
special  revelation  at  all?' 


144  THE  THEORY  REJECTS 


CHAPTER  XX. 

'T'HE  Negative  Theory  throws  overboard  all  Ex- 
ternal  and  Traditional  Evidence.  I  admit  that  it 
is  very  difficult  to  prove  the  trustworthiness  of  this  class 
of  evidence.  But  it  is  equally  difficult  to  prove  its  un- 
trustworthiness.  In  our  lack  of  knowledge  either  for  or 
against  such  evidence,  it  is  only  fair  to  accept,  and  not 
to  reject  it,  especially  in  view  of  the  tenacity  with  which 
Orientals  retain  a  definite  traditional  record. 

The  folly  of  allowing  a  series  of  internal  probabilities 
to  weigh  decisively  against  external  evidence, — and  this 
is  the  essential  method  of  the  higher  criticism — has  been 
shown  recently  to  the  humiliation  of  the  higher  criticism, 
in  the  New  Testament  field, — where  discovery  and  discus- 
sion of  external  evidence  are  more  possible — ,in  connection 
with  the  date  of  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  recovery  of 
the  lost  Harmony  of  Tatian,  which  Prof.  J.  Rendell  Har- 
ris calls  the  greatest  Patristic  discovery  of  the  century. 
And  the  consequence  that  the  literary  funeral  of  St. 
John,  which  the  negative  criticism  had  announced  and 
was  so  desirous  of  officiating  at  and  attending,  has,  be- 
cause of  the  recovery  of  the  Harmony,  as  well  as  for 
other  reasons,  been  postponed  indefinitely,  ought  in  all 
good  grace  and  conscience  have  made  the  negative  critics 


TRADITIONAL  EVIDENCE.  145 

a  little  less  sure  and  confident  of  their  method  in  the 
Old  Testament  field. 

Mr.  Harris,  who  imagines  that  the  advanced  critics 
are  so  named  by  compliment,  chiefly  because  they  have 
a  tendency  to  run  ahead  of  the  facts  of  the  case  which 
they  discuss,  says  that  in  the  question  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  St.  John's  Gospel,  the  negative  critics  occupied 
themselves  chiefly  with  the  discussion  of  the  internal 
probabilities,  to  the  exclusion,  almost  entirely,  of  the 
external  evidence  and  the  ecclesiastical  tradition.  It 
would  have  been  better  to  stay  a  while  longer  by  these 
latter,  he  thinks,  for  they  constitute  the  real  facts  of  the 
case,  at  all  events  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  book. 

But  instead  of  doing  that,  Prof.  Reuss,  ^  for  instance, 
who  is  the  original  founder  of  the  post-exilian  hypothe- 
sis, expressed  himself  as  follows  in  his  History  of  the 
New  Testament,  on  the  question  of  the  external  evidence 
for  St.  John's  Gospel: 

"Thepositive  testimony  does  not  begin  ....  until  Theophi- 
lus  of  Antioch,  after  170  A.  D.  But  the  universal  recognition  of 
the  book  by  the  Church  immediately  thereafter,  sufficiently  at- 
tested, would  be  inexplicable  did  it  not  reach  back  much  far- 
ther  The  unspeakable  pains  that  have  been  taken  to  col- 
lect external  evidence  only  shows  that  there  is  none  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  term." 

Similarly,  Dr.  Davidson,  wrote  of  the  same  Gospel* 

"Whatever  may  be  said  about  Justin's  acquaintance  with  this 
Gospel,  its  existence  before  140  A. D.  is  incapable  either  of  de- 
cisive or  probable  showing,    The  Johannine  authorship  has  re- 

a  Canon  of  the  Bible,  p.  99.   i  Eeuss  and  Kuehnen  died  in  1891. 


146      CHAPTER  XX.    THE  THEORY  REJECTS 

ceded  before  the  tide  of  modern  criticism ;  and,  though  this  tide 
is  arbitrary  at  times,  it  is  here  irresistible.  Apologists  should 
abstain  from  strong  assertions,"  etc. 

"Reuss  had  only  ventured  to  fix  an  inferior  limit  for 
the  date,  but  Davidson  went  so  far  as  to  fix  a  superior 
limit  (which  would  be  necessarily  the  death-blow  to  the 
Johannine  authorship),  and  even  to  intimate  that  the 
tide  of  critical  knowledge  on  this  point  was  irresistible. 
At  the  same  time  he  warned  apologists  against"  strong 
assertions,  from  which  it  is  least  fair  to  conclude  that  he 
was  not  conscious  of  having  over-stated  his  own  case  !" 

But,  says  Prof.  Harris,  neither  of  these  statements 
will  bear  repetition  in  view  of  the  additions  that  have 
been  made  to  our  documentary  knowledge  ;  the  only 
thing  that  will  bear  repeating  is  Reuss'  admission  that 
the  "universal  recognition  of  the  book  by  the  Church 
immediately"  after  the  time  of  Theophilus  "would  be  in- 
explicable did  it  not  reach  back  much  further. "  The 
external  testimony  to  St.  John's  Gospel,  says  Prof.  Har- 
ris, does  not  begin  with  Theophilus,  nor  even  with  Ta- 
tian,  who  is  historically  his  senior  ;  it  is  no  longer  law- 
ful to  say  that,  anterior  to  Theophilus,  the  external  evi- 
dence is  practically  non-existent ;  and  it  is  extremely 
doubtful  whether  any  person,  who  is  even  moderately 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  would  to-day  fix  the  lower 
limit  for  St.  John's  Gospel  at  the  year  140,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  turning  the  lower  limit  into  an  upper  limit.  This 
has  come  about  partly  by  the  magnificent  reasoning  of 
Bishop  Lightfoot,and  principally  by  the  coming  to  light 


TRi-DITlONAL  EVIDENCE.  147 

of  the  Harmony  of  Tatian  in  two  different  forms.  The 
very  existence  of  the  Harmony  was  denied  in  the 
strongest  and  most  categorical  terms  by  such  negative 
critics  as  Renan  and  the  author  of  "Supernatural  Reli- 
gion," against  whom  Lightfoot  wrote. 

Its  discovery  shows  that  Tatian  was  so  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  to  have  transcribed 
the  whole  of  it  at  least  once,  and  to  have  carefully  ex- 
amined the  relation  of  the  contained  narratives  to  that 
given  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Tatian  had  quoted 
John's  words  in  another  and  a  well-known  work  of  his,* 
but  the  negative  critics  called  all  these  quotations  in 
question,  throwing  the  testimony  overboard  on  the 
ground  of  internal  probabilities,  and  in  the  interest  of 
their  theory.  The  author  of  "Supernatural  Religion"  for 
instance  devotes  six  pages  to  the  demonstration  that  the 
passages  referred  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

If  it  is  possible  for  an  early  Christian  writer,  pro- 
foundly acquainted  with  John's  Gospel,  which  he  had  at 
least  once  written  off  with  his  own  hand,  to  compose  a 
religious  treatise  which  would  fail  to  convince  critics  in 
later  ages  that  he  had  any  acquaintance  with  John's 
Gospel  at  all,  and  a  treatise  which  would  be  entirely 
thrown  overboard  as  unreliable  external  testimony,  un- 
worthy of  consideration,  how  much  greater  must  the 
temptation  be  in  the  Old  Testament  field, where  external 
testimony  is   more  scarce,  and  inconvenient  corrobora- 

1  Apology  to  the  Greeks. 


148  CHAPTER  XX.  REJECTS. 

tive  discoveries  are  less  likely  to  be  made,  to  the  nega- 
tive critics,  to  throw  external  traditional  testimony  over- 
board as  unreliable,  on  the  ground  of  internal  proba- 
bilities, and  in  the  interest  of  a  theory.  And  this  illu- 
sion of  the  negative  theory,  in  throwing  overboard  ex- 
ternal testimony,  can  scarcely  be  overestimated,  when  we 
remember  that  in  the  case  of  Tatian  and  John's  Gospel, 
Tatian  had  actually  made  verbatim  quotations  from 
John  with  whom  nevertheless  the  negative  critics  stren- 
uously maintained  he  was  unacquainted. 

The  newly  discovered  fragment  of  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Peter,  another  document  that  brings  fresh  and 
unexpected  evidence  for  the  antiquity  and  authenticity  of 
John's  Gospel,  again  shows  the  folly  of  casting  aside 
traditional  evidence.  For  this  Gospel  must  be  much 
later  then  John,  because  it  aims  at  accommodating  the 
story  to  a  well-developed  theory  of  Messianic  tradition, 
which  grew  up  in  the  post-apostolic  age,  and  which  the 
older  authentic  Gospels  do  not  reflect.  This  is  the  opin- 
ion not  merely  of  Prof.  Harris,  but  of  Prof.  J.  H. 
Thayer,  of  the  Harvard  Divinity  School,  who  writes: 
"Half  a  century  of  discussion  is  swept  away  by  the  re- 
cent discovery  at  a  stroke.  Brief  as  is  the  recovered 
fragment,  it  attests  indubitably  all  four  of  our  canoni 
cal  books."  The  going  back  of  the  date  of  John's  Gos- 
pel, and  enforced  admission  of  quotations  that  were 
formerly  thrown  overboard  must,  says  Mr.  Harris,  be 
very  good  news  to  the  apologist,  of  whom  he  does  not 
profess  to  be  one,  and  equally  satisfactory  to  those  who 


OUR  LORD*S  TEACHING.  149 

like  himself  know  from  their  experience  as  investigators, 
"that  the  Catholic  traditions  have  a  peculiar  habit  of 
justifying  themselves  against  those  that  impugn  them," 


150  WEAKNESS  OF 


T 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

tIE  Judgments  of  the  Negative  Critical  Mind  are 
not  Free  from  Prejudice  and  Preposession.  This 
point  would  not  be  urged,  if  it  were  admitted.  It  is 
tacitly  denied  in  a  certain  tone  assumed  by  the  school  in 
referring  to  or  dealing  with  the  uninitiated.  It  is  not 
urged  as  a  suggestion  to  modesty,  but  as  a  presumption 
in  favor  of  the  school's  fallibility. 

The  critical  mind  considers  its  reasonings,  its  investi- 
gatory apparatus,  its  modes  of  dealing  with  facts,  its 
scientific  furniture,  its  power  of  insight  and  vision,  its 
points  of  view,  its  premises,  and  its  results  to  be  so  su- 
perior, that  opponents  are  out  of  range  and  out  of  date 
in  a  contest  with  it. 

If  we  concede  to  the  school  every  advantage  of  newer 
method,  and  of  accurate  detail  machinery, — a  conces- 
sion not  necessary, — the  school  is  still  obliged  to  use,  as 
the  ultimate  decider  and  judge,  the  same  old  human 
mind  on  which  we  all  rely,  and  whose  ineradicable  lim- 
itations, and  capacities  for  prejudice,  narrowness  and 
mistake,  are  likely  to  vitiate  the  results  of  the  negative 
critical  school  as  frequently  as  they  do  the  results  of  any 
other  careful  and  powerful  order  of  intellect.  Moreover, 
the  very  excellencies  of  the  critical  equipment  from  one 


THE   CRITICAL  MIND.  IIJI 

point  of  view,  are  defects  from  another  point  ©f  view. 
Kuehnen,  for  instance,  was  disqualified  by  his  critical 
bent  for  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  forces  of  history 
and  of  their  movement. 

Every  type  of  mind  has  its  own  peculiar  weaknesses  and 
dangers,  and  from  a  purely  formal  point  of  view  is  na- 
turally more  accessible  to  one  mode  of  argument  than  it 
should  be,  and  less  accessible  to  another  mode  than  it 
should  be.  Thus  Cheyue,  quoting  Pfleiderer,  points 
out  a  weakness  in  Ewald's  mind,  and,  quoting  Prof. 
Oort,  shows  how  that  weakness  led  Ewald  into  a  petitio 
principii.  So,  on  the  other  hand,  the  weakness  of  Prof. 
Cheyne's  own  judgment  might  be  pointed  out,  especially 
as  shown  in  his  most  recent  work.  And  — what  is  more 
to  the  purpose — the  weaknesses  of  the  whole  school  as 
such  may  be  indicated.  They  are  those  naturally  inher- 
ent in  the  critical  type  of  mind. 

There  are  prepossessions  against  the  established, 
against  the  traditional,  and  against  all  external  author- 
ity. There  are  prepossessions  in  favor  of  revolution  and 
radicalism  and  liberalism.  There  is  a  constitutional  draw- 
ing towards  the  more  free  and  spiritual  side  of  things. 
There  is  the  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  value  of  a  new, 
or  an  ''advanced"  theory,  when  proposed  as  an  explana- 
tion of  objective  realities.  There  is  an  illusion,  very 
common  in  the  scientific  mind,  that  a  hypothesis  ac- 
cepted by  a  whole  group  of  scholars,  because  it  works 
pretty  well  with  the  facts  and  accords  with  the  common 
Zeitgeist,  is  really  a  part  of  the  constitution  and  course 


152  CHAPTEK  XXI.  -WEAKNESS   OP 

of  history,  though  in  fact  it  may  still  be  a  thing  float- 
ing at  almost  every  essential  point.  There  is  the  same 
temptation  to  ^'principii  petitio^^  for  critical  purposes, 
which  arises  in  the  ardent  or  artistic  mind  for  rhetorical 
purposes.  There  is  the  same  inability  to  see  weakness 
in  the  line  of  one's  own  special  instincts,  that  exists  in 
other  types. 

In  opposing  each  otlier^  these  critics  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  charging  each  other  with  being  the  victim  of  the 
defect  of  some  fundamental  mental  quality,  which  is 
able  to  interfere  with  the  solid  value  of  results.  For  in- 
stance, Cheyne,  in  criticising  Robertson  Smith,  says, 
''He  appears  to  me  to  be  too  much  of  a  prey  to  the  love 
simplicity."  On  the  other  hand,  Robertson  Smith  be- 
lieves that  Cheyne  himself  is  "fanciful."  Now  if  men- 
tal qualities  in  the  critic,  and  not  objective  facts  in  the 
record,  are  the  sources  of  a  critic's  conclusions,  as  here 
acknowledged  between  two  of  them,  the  same  thing  may 
be  true  as  between  one  type  or  class  of  mind,  and 
another  type  or  class. 

But  still  worse  for  the  negative  school,  Canon  Cheyne 
in  answering  the  charge  that  he  is  "fanciful,"  himself 
confesses  to  the  nature  of  the  fabric  of  which  the  "posi- 
tive" and  sure  conclusions  of  the  negative  school  cannot 
avoid  being  built. ^  He  says:  That  my  view  is  'fanci- 
ful,' should  be  no  objection  to  a  historical    student  like 

1  It  is  not  to  the  use  of  this  kind  of  fabric  that  we  here  object 
but  to  the  constant  and  cool  assumption  that  this  is  the  kind  of 
stuff  out  of  which  certainly  flows,  and  that  this  fabric  is  history. 


THE   CKITICA.L  MIND.  153 

the  author.  There  are  as  Milton  has  told  us  two  kinds 
of  fancy:  the  nobler  kind  some  of  us  prefer  to  call 
*imagination.'  Professor  Smith,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
himself  not  devoid  of  this  priceless  gift,  without  which 
there  is  no  piecing  together  the  scattered  fragments  of 
history,  no  vivifying  the  lifeless  conclusions  of  a  cold 
criticism." 

So  that  after  all  the  "cold  criticism"  depends  for  con- 
structive strength  upon  a  warm  imagination,  and  the  re- 
sult is  not  stronger  than  the  weakest  of  the  defects  in 
that  imagination.  And  after  all  the  very  fundamentals 
in  what  the  negative  theory  regards  as  settled  and  sure, 
are  bound  together  by  the  glile  of  imagination,  so  long 
as  external  evidence  is  lacking,  and  may  in  the  future 
fall  entirely  into  pieces. 

"These  .... 
As  I  foretold  you,  were  all  spirits,  and 
Are  melted  into  air,  into  thin  air 
And  the  cloud-capped  towers,  the  gorgeous  palaces 

shall  dissolve ; 

And 

Leave  not  a  rack  behind." 

What  Cheyne  says  of  Bwald  may  to  some  extent  be 
said  of  the  whole  critical  school.  He  says,  "Much  that 
Ewald  in  his  later  years  considered  himself  to  have  set- 
tled, has  now  become  very  properly  the  subject  of  de- 
bate." The  same  is  true  of  his  remark  on  Hitzig; 
"The  application  of  that  method  of  criticism,  which 
seeks  to  determine  the  date  of  a  book  from  internal 
characteristics  alone,  led  him  to  many  results,  especially 


154  THE   CRITICAL  MtNB. 

in  his  work  on  the  Psalms,  which  are  not  likely  to  hold 
their  ground,"  and  his  other  remark  on  Hitzig,  may  be 
applied  to  the  fundamental  position  of  the  very  best  of 
the  higher  critics.  "As  a 'higher  critic'  he  errs  .  .  .  . 
he  forgets  the  necessary  limits  of  human  knowledge." 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  155 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

'TpHE  whole  Theory  of  the   Pentateuch,  from  be- 
ginning to  end,and  in  every  particular, excepting  the 
a  priori  introduction  of  the  principle  of  natural  develop- 
ment, is  dependent  entirely  upon  internal  evidence. 

There  is  no  other  evidence  for  the  post-exilian  compo- 
sition of  the  Pentateuch.  Not  one  tittle  of  external 
historical  testimony  is  alleged  for  the  list  of  authors, 
Jehovists,  Elohists,  and  Redactors,  whom  the  critical 
world  has  learned  to  know  so  well.  The  exceeding 
weight  of  this  consideration  is  frequently  forgotten. 

Whatever  external  evidence  there  is,  in  the  frequent 
statements  of  the  work  itself,  in  the  references  of  sub- 
sequent literature,  in  tradition,  in  the  testimony  of 
prophets,  apostles  and  Christ,  is  all  in  the  other  direc- 
tion. 

Internal  evidence  has  a  very  important  function.  ^  Dif- 
ferences and  discrepancies  and  contradictions — if  they 
are  proven  to  be  really  such— may  be  very  damaging  to 
the  credibility  and  truthfulness  of  those  who  in  times 
gone  by  were  in  a  position  to  bequeathe  us  objective  and 
external  testimony.  But  internal  evidence,  while  it  is 
a  very  useful  instrument  in  tearing  structure  down,  is  a 

1  Compare  page  29. 


156  CHAPTER   XXII.  BELIANCE  ON 

very  delusive  thing  on  which  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
new  structure.  It  is  valuable  for  being  always  suggest- 
ive of  theories,  including  both  true  and  false.  It  is  in- 
valuable in  incidental  confirmation  of  an  already  posi- 
tively established  theory.  But  it  is  a  very  dangerous  and 
flimsy  thing  on  which  to  entirely  rest  a  new  theory.  The 
difficulties  in  the  case  are  so  great  that  there  are  many 
presumptions  against  it,  to  one  in  its  favor.  Yet  it  is  ■ 
only  by  the  use  of  this  evidence  that  the  Pentateuch  can 
be  cut  up  and  parceled  out  among  the  supposed  various 
early  and  later  writers,  who  are  said  to  have  had  a  hand 
in  its  composition.  Prof.  Matthew  Leitch,  of  Belfast, 
speaking  on  this  point,  says  : 

"To  divide  a  book  into  two  or  three  parts  and  assign 
each  to  a  separate  author,  judging  solely  by  internal  evi- 
dence, might  in  certain  circumstances  be  possible,  but  it 
is  very  difficult.  Shakespeare  in  some  of  his  plays  has 
worked  up  the  writings  of  older  dramatists,  and  it  is 
very  difficult  to  decide  what  is  Shakespeare's  own  and 
what  is  taken  from  others.  No  one  is  able  to  do  it  with 
any  certainty  unless  he  has  some  external  evidence  to 
guide  him.  And  no  one  would  attempt  it,  judging 
merely  by  style  and  phraseology  if  he  has  only  brief 
scraps  and  extracts  of  the  writing  used.  He  must  have 
long  and  varied  passages  if  he  is  to  judge  by  style  at  all. 

Yet  here  are  critics  who  can  judge  of  the  style  and 
phraseology  of  a  single  verse,  or  half  verse,  and  assign 
it  with  confidence  to  an  author  of  whom  they  know  lit- 
tle or  nothing.     They  can  tell  not  only  what  parts  of 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  157 

lost  documents  were  adopted  by  the  compiler,  but  what 
were  passed  over.     They  can  split  up  a  small  book  like 
the  Pentateuch  into  fragments,  and  assign  them  to  above 
a  dozen  otherwise  unknown   authors.     Wellhausen  act- 
ually divides  the  Hexateuch  among  twenty-two  different 
authors  and  redactors,  and  Kuenen,  among  at  least  eigh- 
teen.    It  would  be  far  more  suitable  to  have  only  four  or 
five.     But  the  critic  is  obliged  by  the  necessities  of  his 
theory  to  add  on  Elohist  to  Elohist  and  redactor  to  re- 
dactor.    A  passage,   for  instance,  which  by  his  usual 
criteria  is  assigned  to  the  Elohist,  is  found  to  have  im- 
bedded in  it  the  name  Jehovah,  and  so  he  must  bring  in 
a  Jehovist  redactor  for  the  word  or  the  clause  that  con- 
tains it.     Again,  a  passage  which  has  the  criteria  of  one 
redactor  is  found  to  have  a  word  or  clause  that  the  critic 
has  shown  elsewhere  cannot  have  been  used  by  him,  and  so 
he  has  to  bring  in  a  second  or  third  redactor.  It  will  not, 
therefore,    do    to    say,    with  our    British    adopters    of 
these    theories,    "I    will    accept    Wellhausen's   four    or 
five  authors,  but  not  his  twenty-two."     You  are  obliged 
for  the  same  reasons  for  which  you  accept  his  five, to  ac- 
cept his  twenty-two.    He  himself  sees  that,  carrying  out 
the  principles  that  are  essential  to  his  theory,  and  judg- 
ing by  the  criteria  which  have  guided  him  all  through 
his  work,  he  is  obliged  to  add  document  to  document. 
You  have  no  right  to  repudiate  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  your  theory  only  when  they  lead  you  into  absur- 
ditips.     And  surely  there  is  absurdity  enough  to  condemn 
any  theory  in  the  supposition  that  a  book  like  the  Penta- 


158  CHAPTER  XXII.  INTBBNJlL  EVIDENCE. 

teuch,  which  has  vindicated  its  literary  unity  and  power- 
ful individuality  by  winning  its  way  through  charm  of 
style  and  matter  to  the  hearts  of  young  and  old  through- 
out a  hundre  d  generations,  is  the  result  of  the  artificial 
combination  of  heterogeneous  documents  from  different 
centuries  patched  together  by  half  a  dozen  unknown 
compilers." 

Moreover,  if  the  Pentateuch  were  a  mosaic  of  earlier 
fragments,  one  might  feel  that  there  ought  to  be  at 
least  some  trace  of  the  original  documents  from  which 
the  fragments  were  taken.  If  any  of  the  unused  frag- 
ments had  been  found,  and  the  used  fragments  were  seen 
to  fit  precisely  into  them,  the  theory  would  have  had 
something  on  which  to  rest. 

We  shall  see  that  internal  evidence  of  the  kind  offered 
for  the  composite  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  might 
be  devised  to  prove  the  composite  authorship  of  almost 
any  piece  of  narrative  writing  in  the  world, and  we  might 
subjoin,  for  instance,  a  critical  analysis  of  say  the  parable 
of  the  Sower,  showing  how  it  must  have  been  written  by 
two  authors,  one  redactor  and  two  sub-redactors,  if  there 
were  sufficient  space. 


RECKLESS   ASSUMPTIONS.  159 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

npHE   negative   theory   is  obliged  to  introduce  a 
large  number  of  reckless  internal  assumptions 

in  order  to  make  its  hypotheses  meet  the  case.  The  fact 
that  there  are  already  over  thirty  different  proposed 
theories  of  reconstructing  the  Old  Testament  text,  and 
of  parceling  out  the  various  portions  to  the  original 
writers,  and  their  still  later  redactors,  though  not  as 
damaging  as  at  first  sight  it  appears  to  be,  yet  of  itself 
shows  how  subjective  and  uncertain  the  methods  of 
such  critical  analysis  must  be.  But  each  of  these 
theories  finds  its  own  set  of  difficulties  to  solve,  and  ob- 
stacles to  overcome,  in  order  to  cut  up  and  fit  the  text 
into  its  own  point  of  view.  To  get  rid  of  these  trouble- 
some difficulties  and  obstacles  there  is  a  really  reckless 
assumption  of  the  presence  of  redactors  and  sub-redac- 
tors and  interpolaters  of  the  manuscripts.  Only  by  such  a 
method  can  refractory  portions  be  thrown  into  a  differ- 
ent, especially  a  later  age. 

The  negative  criticism  deals  thus,  also  with  whole 
books  of  the  Bible,  changing  authors  and  dates  with 
ease  and  inconsistency.  **It  would  seem  as  if  the  books 
of  the  Bible  were  pieces  on  the  chessboard,  which  may 
be  placed  a^y  where  in  time, "  to  fit  the  plan  of  the  critic  ^ 


160  CHAPTER  XXIII.  INCONSISTENCY. 

Negative  critics,  not  less  than  Christian  apologists,have 
shown  a  disposition  to  change  things  to  fit  according  to 
a  priori  judgments.  Prof.  Sayce  remarks  of  the  former, 
"As  regards  their  historical  conclusions  I  am  very  much 
at  issue  with  them.  I  think  they  have  end.^avored  to 
demolish  the  history  contained  in  the  Old  Testament 
upon  most  insufficient  evidence,  and  in  accordance  with 
a  method  which  could  not,  and  would  not  be  applied  to 
secular  history." 

The  fact  that  a  new  theory  shifts  its  ground  a  number 
of  times  is  not  necessarily  against  it.  It  may  each  time 
be  approximating  nearer  the  truth.  But  in  the  case  be- 
fore us,  the  large  increase  of  the  subjective  assumptions 
above  referred  to,  with  every  succeeding  change  rightly 
raises  presumptions  against  it.  The  original  document- 
ary hypothesis  could  not  hold  its  ground  and  was  aban- 
doned, and  Vater's  fragmentary  hopothesis  arose.  This 
died  away,  and  the  supplemental  hypothesis  of  Von  Boh- 
len  and  De  Wette  succeeded  it.  But  their  hypothesis 
succumbed  to  its  difficulties  and  the  new  documentary 
theory  was  invented.  By  this  time  the  analysis  has  be- 
come exceedingly  complicated,  the  supposed  documents 
and  fragments  being  delimited  verse  by  verse,  and  some- 
times even  word  by  word. 

The  theory  now  assumes  not  only  that  there  are  several 
great  documents,  some  earlier  and  some  later,  composing 
the  Pentateuch,  but  that  in  the  course  of  centuries  un- 
known individuals  have  so  altered  and  patched  the  Histor- 
ical books  of  the  Old  Testament  that  it  is  sometimes  im- 


INCONSISTENCY.  161 

possible  to  divide  the  supposed  original  documents  from 
each  other,  and  from  additions  by  later  writers.  It  as- 
sumes that  the  order  of  events  has  been  disturbed.  It 
assumes  that  events  really  distinct  have  been  fused  to- 
gether and  mistaken  for  one  and  the  same.  It  assumes 
that  statements  which  are  misleading  have  been  inserted 
with  the  view  of  harmonizing  what  cannot  in  fact  be  rec- 
onciled. It  assumes  that  traditions  have  been  dealt  with 
very  freely  by  successive  writers,  and  been  warped  from 
their  proper  original  intent  by  the  mistaken  efforts  of  re- 
dactors. It  assumes  that  this  meaning  has  been  seriously 
altered  in  repeated  instances,  and  creates  a  presumption 
that  changes  have  been  freely  made  in  other  places 
which  can  now  no  longer  be  detected. 


A  T  the  same  time  the  theory  fails  to  show  why  the 

redactors   who   altered   so  freely,  did  not  make 

more  consistent  work  of  their  reconstructions.  If  the 

originals  are  to  be  suspected  for  their  inconsistencies,  the 
reconstructions  ought  to  be  an  improvement  in  the  mat- 


163  CHAPTER  IXiri.  INCONSISTENCY 

ter  of  consistency.  ^  But  they  are  not.  They  are  not 
only  at  variance  with  each  other  in  their  statements  re- 
specting numerous  particulars,  thus  invalidating  each 
other's  testimony,  and  showing  that  they  are  mutually 
inconsistent,  but  they  are  very  fragmentary  and  in- 
complete. The  internal  difficulties  of  the  supposed 
original  sources  are  many  and  great. 

Thus  the  new  theory  lays  all  stress  on  the  ''Levitical 
code"  code  (P)  which  was  written  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 
Now  it  has  been  shown  that  this  legislation  thus  thrown 
together  by  the  new  theory  is  just  precisely  not  a  code. 
"It  treats  the  same  topic  in  various  places.  What  is 
laid  down  in  one  section  is  supplemented  in  another  at 
a  distance  from  it,  or  is  repeated  with  no  essential 
change,  or  is  replaced  by  something  different.  'This 
treatment  by  repetitions,  digressions,  dis-membermeuts, 
and  insertions  is  not  the  exception  so  much  as  the  rule, 
and  gives  the  Mosaic  lecjislation  the  interspersed   and 

1  "The  vast  army  of  German  commentators,  with  Mr.  Leaf 
and  others  in  England,  dissect  every  hook,  exhibiting  here  a 
fragment  of  an  older  lay,  there  the  work  of  a  rhapsode  ;  here 
the  additions  of  a  later  poet,  there  the  intrusions  of  an  Interpo- 
lator. They  fight  like  fiends  among  themselves  as  to  what  por- 
tion is  old,  what  new,  what  genuine,  what  false.  There  is  little 
consistency,  there  are  hundreds  of  flat  contradictions  among 
the  exponents  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  Their  ideas  are  some- 
times even  ludicrous  ....  Among  other  pleasing  circumstances 
Fick's  liad  makes  Agamemnon,  unarmed,  in  cloak  and  slippers, 
rush  into  the  fray,  where  we  presently  find  him  fighting  with  a 
spear  and  protected  by  complete  armor.  This  is  by  way  of  re- 
storing the  original  consistency."— Andrew  Lang  on  '"Homer." 


INCONSIiTENCT.  163 

fragmentary  character  of  a  painted  window,  broken  and 
patched  together  without  design.'  If  Ezra  or  the  priests 
of  the  post-exilic  period  regarded  themselves  as  author- 
ized to  codify  and  complete  the  earlier  legislation,  what 
possible  reason  could  they  have  had  for  leaving  it  in  this 
disjointed,  confused,  and  u?i-codiG.ed  state  ?  'Can  any 
one  conceive  a  priestly  conclave,  with  nothing  else  to  do, 
and  ample  time  in  which  to  do  it,  turning  out  such  a 
piece  of  work  as  this  for  the  practical  guidance  of  a 
restored  community?'  " 

\/'ET  THE  negative  theory  Rejects  the  Penta- 
teuchal  legislation  because  It  is  not  digested 
into  one  self-consistent  code,  "as  might  be  expected  if 
it  all  belonged  to  one  period,  and  sprang  from  a  common 
source."  The  theory  holds  that  the  Pentateuchal  legis- 
lation could  not  have  been  all  the  work  of  Moses  and 
his  times  because  it  contains  repetitions,  incongruities 
and  contradictions. 

There  are  four  separate  and  satisfactory  replies  to  this 
position,  each  of  which  shows  that  the  argument  proves 
the  contrary  of  the  theory's  inference  from  it. 

In  the  first  place  after  the  new  theory  has  itself  made 
selection  of  a  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  declared  it  to 
be  from  Ezra  and  the  school  of  the  scribes,  who  had 
time  to  construct  a  consistent  whole,  the  part  turns  out 
to  be  full  of  variations  and  inconsistencies.  The  ground 
of  the  negative  criticism's  rejection  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
untenable  by  its  own  advocates'   demonstration,  after 


164  CHAPTER  XXV.  DISCREPAJTCY 

they  hare  had  a  choice  of  the  matter  to  which  it  is  to  be 
applied. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  not  during  a  time  of  social 
peace,  quiet  and  reflection,  that  a  priesthood  with  either 
much  or  little  intelligence  would  originate  a  work  of  this 
kind.  A  work,  with  want  of  order,  with  repetitions  not 
identical, with  incongruities,with  facts  difficult  to  harmo- 
nize is  not  a  work  of  the  school  or  the  study.  It  could 
only  be  the  product  of  daily  journals  for  instance,  or  the 
union  of  many  documents  comidered  worthy  of  too  much 
respect  to  be  altered  at  all,  even  to  better  the  form  of  it. 

In  the  third  place,  discrepancies  nearly  always  occur, 
in  the  narratives  of  intelligent  and  truthful  men  con- 
cerning famous  events  of  recent  occurrence  ;  or  in  the 
sworn  testimony  of  truthful  witnesses  to  recent  events, 
and  how  much  more  would  that  naturally  be  the  case  in 
such  an  ancient  and  primitive  document  containing  in 
compressed  form,  narratives  of  such  great  and  compli- 
cated character.  In  a  recent  periodical  the  most  dis- 
tinguished newspaper  correspondent  of  Europe,  describ- 
ing the  defeat  of  Napoleon  the  Third  at  Sedan,  points 
out  that  while  there  is  an  agreement  of  the  various  nar- 
ratives as  to  the  salient  facts  connected  with  the  sur- 
render and  defeat  of  the  French  army,  yet  there  are 
''hopeless  and  bewildering  discrepancies  in  regard  to  de- 
tails," even  as  these  are  reported  by  eyewitnesses,  in- 
cluding Bismarck,  General  Sheridan  and  others.  If  then 
testimony  of  fifteen  years  standing  has  bewildering  va- 
riations and  yet  it  does  not  invalidate  either  the  event  or 


JLND   AUTHENTICITY.  ICS 

the  narratives,  how  much  less  is  that  a  sufficient  cause 
for  dismembering  and  repudiating  narratives  and  testi- 
mony of  the  greatest  antiquity. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  variations  in  the  pentateuchal 
narratives  and  legislation  are  largely,  perhaps  entirely, 
explainable  from  the  nature  of  the  case  itself.  If  there  are 
several  distinct  bodies  of  law,  which  both  differ  in  the 
matters  to  which  they  severally  relate,  and  also  contain 
divergent  regulations  concerning  the  same  matter,  we 
must  not  fail  to  bear  in  mind  that  there  were  different 
occasions  upon  which  they  were  prepared,  and  different 
ends  which  they  were  respectively  designed  to  answer. 

For  instance,  that  detailed  regulations  are  given  in 
Leviticus  respecting  matters  not  alluded  to  at  all  in  Deu- 
teronomy, or  only  summarily  referred  to  there,  is  not  be- 
cause the  former  is  a  subsequent  development  from  the 
latter,  or  because  it  belongs  to  a  period  when  a  new  class 
of  subjects  engaged  popular  attention.  It  belonged  to 
the  priests  to  conduct  the  ceremonial.  While  it  was  im- 
portant for  the  people  to  be  instructed  how  to  distin- 
guish clean  and  unclean  meats,  i  since  this  entered  into 
their  daily  life,  it  was  sufficient  in  respect  to  leprosy, 
for  instance,  to  admonish  them  in  general^  to  heed 
the  injunction  already  given  to  the  priests,  in  Leviticus. 
It  was  enough  for  the  people  to  be  told  where  to  bring 
their  various  offerings'  and  that  the  animal  mustbewith- 

1  Deut.  14.3  pp.  comp.  Lev.  11. 

2  Deut.  24.  8. 
»  Deut.  12. 6. 


166  CHArTER  XXIII.  DISCREPANCY 

out  blemish.  But  the  specifications  respecting  the  ofifer- 
ings*  and  the  ritual  to  be  observed,  ^  were  entrusted  to  the 
priests.  ^ 

Again,  it  was  quite  natural  that  some  modifications  of 
pre-existing  laws  should  be  made  in  Deuteronomy  after 
the  lapse  of  nearly  forty  years,  whether  with  the  view  of 
rendering  them  more  explicit,  ^  for  the  sake  of  a  further 
extension  of  the  same  principle,  ^  or  because  rendered 
necessary  by  the  transition  from  the  wilderness  to  Ca- 
naan. ^  No  objection  of  any  moment  can  be  drawn  from 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  laws  are  framed  with  reference  to 
the  condition  of  the  people  after  they  should  be  settled  in 
Canaan  ;  for  in  most  cases  their  very  terms^  imply  that 
this  was  prospective.  ^ 

Again,  some  laws  have  been  represented  as  mutually 
inconsistent,  which  really  relate  to  distinct  matters,  and 
supplement,  instead  of  contradicting  each  other.  Thus 
the  titles  of  Deut.  12.  17  flf.,  14.  22  ff.  are  additional  to 
those  of  Num.  18.  24.  Deut.  18. 3,  is  distinct  from  Lev. 
7.  34.  Num.  4.  3,  belongs  to  the  transportation  of  the 
tabernacle,  and  8.  24,  to  its  ordinary  ministration.  ^ 

4  Lev.  22. 19-25. 

6  Lev.  chapters  1-7. 

7  Prof.  W.  H.  Green. 

1  Ex.  21. 2  ff.  comp.  Deut.  23. 19,  20,  etc. 

a  Ex.  23. 10  fE.  comp.  Deut.  15. 1  ff. 

*  Lev.  17.  3,  4;  comp.  Deut.  12. 15,  etc.    The  omission  of  Lev, 

11. 21,  22  from  Deut.  14. 

4  Lev.  14. 34, 25. 1 ;  Deut.  12. 1, 19.  U. 

s    Prof.  W.H.Green. 


AND  AUTHENTtCITT.  16t 

It  is  thus  easy  to  see  that  the  theory  in  rejecting  the 
legislation  because  of  its  variation  fails  to  perceive  that 
these  are  actually  amongst  the  strongest  proofs  of  its 
naturalness  and  historicity.  * 

3  Even  if  there  were  actual  inconsistencies  in  the  narrative, 
or  errancy  in  the  writings,  that  fact  would  not  constitute  any 
real  argument,  for  the  composite  or  against,  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship. Speaking  of  the  errors  in  Homer,  Mr.  Lang  says,  "AH 
writers  fall  into  such  errors.  Thackeray  makes  Master  Francis 
Clavering  grow,  in  six  years,  from  the  age  of  five  to  that  of 
thirteen.  He  says,  in  the  first  number  of  "Pendennis,"  that 
Arthur's  mother  is  still  alive ;  he  kills  her  in  his  seventeenth 
number.  He  gives  Mrs.  Bungay  two  different  Christian  names 
in  two  consecutive  pages.  In  the  "Antiquary"  Scott  makes  the 
sun  set  in  the  east.  All  these.and  a  thousand  similar  slips,the  Ger- 
mans, if  they  found  them  in  Homer,  would  account  for  as  'inter- 
polations.' Now,  Homer,  whether  he  could  or  could  not  write, 
had  no  proof-sheets,  no  revises,  and  no  James  Ballantyne  to 
mark  his  proofs  with  minute  comments  and  inquiries." 


168  SINGLE  PASSAGES 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

'TpHE  negative  theory  deals  violently  with  many 
passages,  either  in  our  exegetical  or  in  a  critical 
sense,  to  make  the  records  agree  with  its  hy- 
pothesis. For  instance,  one  of  the  main  points  of  the 
new  theory  is  that  in  the  olden  times  sacrifices  were  of- 
fered on  the  high  places,  and  the  tabernacle  worship  was 
unknown.  It  would  therefore  be  greatly  to  the  interest 
of  the  new  view  if  a  passage  could  be  found  in  that 
part  of  the  Pentateuch  which  it  declares  to  be  old, 
which  permits  or  sanctions  sacrifices  at  any  locality  in- 
stead of  in  one  place.  Now  there  is  a  place  in  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  Exodus,  which  directs  that  the 
people  shall  make  an  altar  of  earth  (not  of  stone)  for  sac- 
rifices, and  adds,  "In  all  places  where  I  record  my  name 
I  will  come  unto  thee,  and  I  will  bless  thee." 

In  reality  the  passage  forbids  an  arbitrary  choice  of 
place  of  sacrifice,  and,  while  it  does  not  exclude  a  plu- 
rality of  such  places,  it  neither  presupposes  nor  de- 
mands them.  And  another  passage  in  the  same  section, 
23.  17,  commands  all  the  males  to  appear  before  the 
Lord  three  times  a  year,  and  seems  to  presuppose  a  cen- 
tralization of  the  worship.  ^ 

1  Prof.  W.  H.  Green. 


SINGLE  PASSAGES.  169 

Yet  the  new  theory  says  the  first  passage  means  noth- 
ing  more  than  that  the  people  did  not  want  the  place 
of  communion  between  heaven  and  earth  to  be 
looked  upon  as  having  been  chosen  arbitrarily  ;  but  that 
they  regarded  it  as  chosen  in  some  way  (!)  by  God  him- 
self. 

Again  the  picture  of  Ezra,  as  given  in  the  books  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  by  tradition,  does  not  at  all 
accord  with  the  picture  which  the  new  theory  draws, and 
which  must  read  into  the  narrative  what  is  not  there,  and 
do  violence  to  it  otherwise. 

Again,  in  order  to  overthrow  a  proof  of  the  law  of  in- 
heritance which  prevailed  among  the  priests  of  the  line  of 
Aaron,  the  false  conclusion  is  drawn  by  Wellhausen  from 
1  Sam.  2.  37ff.,that  Zadok  was  the  "first  of  an  absolutely 
new  line,"  and  was  neither  of  a  Levite,  nor  of  the  line  of 
Aaron.  Bnt  the  divine  threat  is  made  only  against  Eli's 
house,  and  not  against  the  entire  house  of  his  father. 

Still  again,  the  difference  in  the  aim  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets  is  ignored.  So  also  the  moral  character  of  the 
ceremonial  law  is  ignored.  It  is  assnmed  that  the  proph- 
ets were  opposed  to  the  observance  of  the  sacrificial  rit- 
ual. This  is  not  so.  They  were  opposed  to  practises  of 
the  people  in  connection  with  this  observance. 

Still,  again,  the  distinction  between  the  prophets  of 
the  northern  kingdom,  who  prophesy  more  against  the 
introduction  of  heathen  rites,  and  the  southern  kingdom, 
who  prophesy  more  against  an  external  service,  is  ig- 
nored. 


170  SIJTGLE   tASSl-GES. 

So  the  book  of  Job  is  put  after  Jeremiah,  though  Job 
1.  5  does  not  fit  within  the  new  theory  of  the  history  of  of- 
ferings. Ps.  40.  6,  is  put  after  the  exile,  though  if  it  be  so 
late,  the  mention  of  sin  offerings  in  Amos  5  and  Jeremiah 
7  does  not  exclude  the  existence  of  the  law  of  offerings  at 
an  earlier  period.  But  if  Psalm  40  was  written  before 
the  exile,  then  the  mention  of  sin  offerings  occurs  before 
Ezekiel. 


NON-AUTHENTICITY.  171 


CHAPTER   XXV. 

npHE  negative  criticism  asks  us  to  assume  that 
the  Writings  are  Not  Authentic,  where  a  Better 
Theory  is  possible.  According  to  the  negative  criticism 
the  writers  of  the  exile  went  to  the  greatest  pains  to 
tinge  their  productions  with  the  colouring  of  a  remote 
time.  They  attempted  a  reproduction  of  the  ancient 
phraseology  and  of  the  archaic  type  of  doctrine,  and 
they  worked  their  material  into  a  minute  conformity  to 
the  local  and  historical  circumstances  of  the  time. 

The  negative  criticism  claims  that  it  is  able  to  get  back 
to  the  real  facts,  by  an  elaborate  critical  process.  By  dis- 
entangling the  several  strata  of  writings  and  subject- 
ing them  to  a  searching  comparative  analysis;  by  discern- 
ing and  weighing  the  points  in  which  they  agree  and 
those  in  which  they  differ,  the  negative  critics  are  posi- 
tive that  they  have  ascertained,  from  out  of  the  mass  of 
conflicting  testimony,  how  much  can  be  relied  upon  as 
true,  how  much  has  a  certain  measure  of  probability, 
and  how  much  must  be  rejected  altogether,  i 

I  "I  confess  that  I  think  poets  better  judges  than  professors, 
of  poetical  matters.  But  we  probably  have  the  people,  as  well 
as  the  poets,  except  Coleridge,  on  our  side.  We  see  the  forest  ; 
the  critics  cannot  see  the  forest  for  the  trees For  one,  as 


172  CHAPTER   XXV.  AUTHENTICITY 

The  fact  is  that  the  negative  criticism  makes  a  great 
blunder  in  treating  the  material  of  literature  as  if  it  were 
essentially  one  with  the  material  of  physical  science. 

**The  grouping   and   classification,  the  telling  of  the 
links  of  cause  and  effect,  which  are  so  helpful — indeed, 
absolutely  essential— to  the  fruitful  study  of  geology  or 
chemistry,  can  be  applied  with  profit  to  the  study  of  lit- 
erature only  by  a  student  who   remembers  the  essential 
difference  in  the  nature  of  the  facts  which   have  to  be 
dealt  with.     The  various  authors  of  a  well-marked   pe- 
riod (say,  the  period  of  The  Renaissance  and  Reforma- 
tion)  have  much  in   common,  just  as  the  members  of  a 
group  of  stratified  rocks  or  of  vegetable   alkaloids  have 
much  in  common  ;  but  it  is  clearly  impossible  to  general  • 
ize  with  the  same  confidence  or  to  define  with  the   same 
exactitude  in   the  case  of  the  first  as  in  the  case  of  the 

a  reader  of  poetry,  I  can  believe  in  almost  anything  more 
readily  than  in  the  contradictory,  the  inappropriate  and  pedan- 
tic set  of  notions  which  make  up  much  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
Where  Shelley  said  that  Homer  truly  began  to  be  himself , in  the 
glorious  final  book  of  the  Iliad,  notably  in  the  last,  Peppmueller 
discovers  'the  work  of  a  mere  imitator,  who  could  hardly  write 
a  single  line,  unless  he  had  a  passage  of  the  Iliad  or  Odyssey 
from  which  to  copy  it.'  Are  we  to  hesitate  between  Shelley  and 
Peppmueller  ?  . .  These  things  are  enough  to  make  one  despair  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.  But  Homer,  could  he  hear  them,  would 
only  smile,  as  of  old  with  Lucian  he  smiled  at  his  ancient  critics 
in  the  Islands  of  the  Blessed.  'Which  of  the  pieces  considered 
unauthentic  did  you  write  ?'  asked  Lucian  in  this  interview. 
'All  of  them!'  answered  the  happy  spirit  of  Homer."--Andrew 
Lang. 


JLND   NON-AUTHENTICITY.  173 

other  two.  The  action  of  a  glacier  on  the  rocks  sub- 
jected to  its  abrasion  must  needs  have  a  uniformity 
which  cannot  be  predicated  of  the  action  of  a  great  pub- 
lic event  upon  the  men  brought  within  the  range  of  its 
influence  ;  because,  though  there  is  something  that  may- 
be called  individual  in  a  rock  or  in  a  salt,  the  individual- 
ity of  a  man  is  a  much  more  complex  affair,  which  has 
to  be  reckoned  with  after  a  very  different  fashion.  The 
flood  of  the  French  Revolution  landed  Wordsworth  in  a 
calm  conservatism  ;  it  landed  Hazlitfc  in  vehement  radi- 
calism ;  on  Keats  and  Lamb  it  seemed  to  have  no  influ- 
ence whatever  ;  and  yet  every  one  of  these  four  men  was 
a  noteworthy  product  of  his  period,  "^  and  according  to 
the  method  of  negative  critical  science,  they  ought  to 
bear  a  common  impress. 

The  old  theory,  that  the  books  are  authentic,  is  far 
more  natural,  and  less  open  to  vital  objection,  than  this 
one  by  which  it  is  to  be  supplanted.  If  to-day  a  printed 
book  were  found  which  professed  to  be  by  a  certain 
author,  and  which  subsequent  works,  bound  up  with  it, 
also  sustained  in  the  claim  of  authorship,  the  fact  that 
there  were  anonymous  footnotes,  and  annotations  and 
explanations,  even  though  the  latter  were  from  a  later 
pen  and  anachronistic,  would  not  at  all  cause  or  justify 
the  conclusion  that  the  main  work  was  an  unauthentic 
forgery.  A.nd  so  the  fact  that  in  Deuteronomy,  for  in- 
stance, are  found  some  later  editorial  and  explanatory 
observations  of  a  minor  character,  does  not  at  all  justify 

1.  The  Spectator.  Nov.  11, 1893. 


174  CHAPTER  XXV.  AUTHENTICITY 

the  conclusion  that  the  main  part  of  the  book  is  not 
from  the  author  it  itself  assumes,  and  whose  name  it 
bore  in  the  time  of  Joshua ^  of  the  Judges,^  of  David 
and  Solomon,'  of  Amaziah,*  of  Josiah,^  on  the  first  re- 
turn of  the  exiles,^  and  in  the  time  of  the  second  return 
of  the  exiles. ' 

The  critics  who  postulate  interpolations  at  their  own 
convenience  and  discover  evidences  of  numerous  writings 
pieced  together,  single  words  and  phrases  inserted  here 
and  there,  passages  transposed,  added,  or  omitted,  can- 
not consistently  object  to  a  theory  which  necessitates  a 
few  minor  suppositions,  when  they  take  liberty  to  them- 
selves for  a  hundred  radical  suppositions.  Which  is 
most  probable— that  editorial  additions  should  be  in- 
serted in  an  ancient  book  for  the  sake  of  explanation,  or 
adaptation  to  modern  circumstances,  or  that  interpola- 
tions and  changes  of  the  most  varied  and  radical  char- 
acter should  be  made  to  cause  a  book  of  this  kind  to  ap- 
pear older  than  it  really  is.  ^ 

But,  worse  yet,  if  the  Pentateuch  is  not  authentic,  but 
post-exilic,  the  whole  general  historical  setting  must  be 
set  down  as  an  invention,  and  one  without  adequate  ex- 

1  1.7,8. 

2  3.4. 

3  1  Kings,  2. 3.  2  Kings,  21.  8. 
*  2  Kings,  14,6. 

5  2Kings,  2,  8;23.24,  25. 

6  Ez.  3.  2. 

^  Neh.  8. 1. 

«  Prof.  C.  M.  Mead. 


AWD   WON-AUTHBNTICITY.  175 

planation.i  Why,  for  instance,  should  the  Levitical 
laws  have  been  uniformly  worded  as  if  designed  for  life 
in  an  encampment,  and  not  as  if  Israel  were  established 
in  Canaan.  What  was  the  object  of  manufacturing 
such  a  story  as  the  one  about  Moses  searching  for  the 
goat  of  the  sin-offering  9^  If  there  never  was  a  taber- 
nacle or  offering  of  incense,  the  story  of  Korah,  Dothan 
andAbiram'  could  not  have  happened.  What  would 
the  people  think  of  such  stories,  when  the  Pentateuch 
was  presented  at  the  later  time.  On  the  ''legal  fiction" 
theory,  they  would  be  senseless  and  useless,  and  without 
any  intelligible  purpose.  And,  besides,  if  the  story  of 
Korah  was  invented,  it  would  have  been  an  insult  to  the 
descendants  of  Korah,  who  had  attained  an  honorable 
place  in  the  later  Jewish  church.  So,  on  this  point,  there 
is  the  strongest  possible  internal  and  circumstantial  evi- 
dence that  the  Levitical  law  is  not  post-exilic. 

Another  additional,  and  equally  strong  consideration 
against  the  post-exilian  theory  is  found  in  the  peculiar 
relation  of  the  Israelitish  nation  to  these  books.  As 
George  Ebers  says,  "The  events  of  the  exodus  were  too 
firmly  impressed    on  the  memory  of  the   Hebrews,  the 

1  "For  the  creation  of  a  master-work  of  literature,"  says 
Matthew  Arnold,  "two  powers  must  concur,— the  power  of  the 
moment  and  the  power  of  the  man :  the  man  is  not  enough  with- 
out the  moment."  The  negative  theory  fails  entirely  in  provid. 
ing  the  latter  factor,  and  it  does  not  even  provide  a  satisfactory 
power  of  the  man." 

*  Lev.  16. 16-20. 

«  Num.  16, 


178  CHAPTER  XXV.  AUTHENTICITY. 

Bible  too  often  refers  to  them,  and  especially  the  recol- 
lection of  Sinai,  which  the  wanderers  touched,  appears 
too  early  in  their  history,  and  is  too  distinct,  to  be  con- 
sidered merely  the  fiction  of  later  generatious. 

"Besides  this,  the  Israelitish  nation  was  too  high- 
spirited,  was  too  proud  of  its  dignity  as  the  chosen  peo- 
ple, to  have  ever  allowed  its  spiritual  leaders  to  repre- 
sent it  as  former  slaves  and  serfs  of  a  neighboring  peo- 
ple, if  the  recollection  of  their  sojourn  in  Egypt,  and^the 
exodus,  had  not  been  kept  alive  in  their  own  midst." 


DOUBLE  EVENTS.  177 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 

npHE    negative    theory  assumes    that  the  same  or 

similar  things  will    not   happen    twice  in  the 

same  history ;  and  that  they  will  not  be  described 

twice,  from  dififerent  points  of  view,  in  a  single  record. 

The  fact  is  that  both  of  these  peculiarities  are  true  to 
human  nature,  to  literature,  and  to  life.  How  often  is 
the  same  fact  repeated  in  conversation,  in  writings  of 
various  kinds,  and  in  legal  records.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  how  frequently  do  strange  things  happen  two  or 
three  times  over  at  different  periods  and  in  a  slightly  dif- 
ferent manner  to  the  same  individual.  The  aphorisms 
* 'Truth  is  stranger  than  fiction"  and  "It  is  the  unexpected 
that  happens,"  and  "What  doubles  itself,  triples  itself," 
bear  testimony  to  this  fact.  ^ 

1  Just  after  I  wrote  these  words,  the  family  physician,  com- 
ing in  to  attend  a  sick  one  in  my  house,  reports  that  he  cannot 
remain  long,  for  he  has  been  sent  for  by  two  women,  each  of 
whom  have  fallen  down  stairs,  and  broken  their  legs,  at  the 
same  time,  one  in  the  northern  and  the  other  in  the  southern 
part  of  town.  On  subsequent  inquiry  Ilearned  that  one  of  the 
women  had  dislocated  her  knee  cap,  the  other  suffered  chiefly 
from  contusions ;  that  one  had  fallen  down  from  a  step  ladder, 
and  the  other  down  the  cellar  stairs,  and  both  about  the  same 
time.    Here  is  a  double  event,  very  unusual,  in  a  small  place. 


178        CHAPTER  XXVI.     DOUBLE  EVENTS. 

But  in  dealing  with  the  Old  Testament,  critics  at  once 
assume  that  two  distinct  events,  if  they  have  certain 
features  in  common,  are  thereby  proved  not  to  be  two, 
but  are  in  reality  one  and  the  same  event.  They  do  this 
on  the  ground  of  a  certain  measure  of  correspondence, 
and  as  though  history  never  repeated  itself.  Having  used 
the  correspondence  thus,  they  use  the  differences,  not  to 
show  that  the  events  are  distinct,  but  that  there  are 
several  varying  accounts  of  the  one  one  event.  They, 
further,  infer  that  as  the  same  writer  would  not  have 
written  such  variations  of  the  same  event,  there  must  be 
two  different  writers.  And,  hence,  again,  the  book  con- 
taining these   accounts,  could  not  have  been  written  by 

The  correspondences  are  numerous.  Both  persons  are  women. 
Both  were  injured  by  a  fall.  Both  fell  ai^/ie  same  hour.  Both 
injured  the  leg.  Both  suffered  great  pain.  Both  had  the  same 
physician.  Both  sent  for  him  at  the  same  time.  The  variations 
are  also  very  noticeable.  One  lived  in  the  northern,  the  other 
in  the  southern  part  of  town.  One  fell  down  the  cellar  stairs, 
the  other  down  a  step-ladder.  One  injured  herself  through  con- 
tusions, the  other  by  dislocating  the  knee  cap.  When  the 
chronicles  of  this  town  come  to  be  written,  there  must  in  this 
instance  be  a  record  of  a  double  event,  occurring  at  the  same 
time,  with  many  correspondences,  and  some  striking  variations. 
But  when  the  Higher  Criticism  of  thousands  of  years  later 
goes  over  the  record.the  critics  will  stumble  at  it.  They  will  say: 
"Impossible.  There  was  but  one  fall,  one  woman,  one  leg  in- 
jured. But  we  have  here  a  combination  by  a  redactor  of  several 
inconsistent  traditional  accounts  of  the  same  event,  originally 
recorded  in  different  documents,  and  as  they  do  not  agree,  there 
is  probably  only  a  grain  of  truth  at  the  bottom  of  the  story,  or  it 
may  be  entirely  fabulous!" 


DOUBLE   EVENTS.  179 

one  person  but  is  made  up  from  a  number  of  separate 
documents,  each  diverse  from  others  and  at  variance  with 
them. 

Thus,  for  example,  it  is  assumed  that  the  Bible  opens 
with  such  a  double  document,  in  the  records  of  creation. 
But  there  are  not  two  records  of  creation.  The  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  deals  with  the  world  at  large  and  all 
that  it  contains.  The  second  chapter  deals  with  the 
garden  of  Eden  and  the  relations  of  the  first  human 
pair.  The  first  section  gives  an  all-comprehending  ac- 
count of  the  creation,  in  the  order  of  time.  The  second 
section  is  not  arranged  in  the  order  of  time,  but  starts  at 
the  end  of  the  second  day's  work,  and  shows  how  the 
earth,  upon  which  no  vegetation  had  begun,  was  formed 
into  a  dwelling  place  for  man.  It  has  neither  the  same 
plan,  nor  the  same  aim  as  the  first  section,  but  tries  to 
show  how  the  earth  M^as  prepared  iorma?i.  Each  has  its 
own  respective  theme,  treated  in  its  own  individual  and 
natural  style,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  regarding  them 
as  two  varying  and  discordant  accounts  of  the  same  event. 

Thus,  again,  Abraham  twice  alleged  to  an  Egyptian 
king  that  Sarah  was  his  sister.  The  new  critics  say 
there  could  have  been  only  one  such  transaction,  and 
that  we  must  regard  the  two  narratives  as  varying  ac- 
counts of  the  same  event.  But  why  could  there  have 
been  only  one  such  transaction.  A  man  who  acts  once 
in  a  certain  way,  under  certain  circumstances,  is  surely 
liable  or  tempted  to  act  the  same  way  again  under  a  re- 
currence of  the  same  circumstances.     And  it  is  very  pos- 


180  CHA.PTER  XXVI.  DOUBLE   EVENTS. 

sible  for  the  same  circumstances  to  have  recurred  in  this 
instance. 

Another  such  double  record  is  inferred  in  the  case  of 
the  deluge.  The  critics  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that  in  6. 
19  two  beasts  of  every  sort  are  to  be  taken  into  the  ark, 
while  in  7.  1-5  seven  of  every  clean  beast  are  prescribed. 
But  there  is  no  discordance  here.  The  first  instruction 
was  given  over  a  century  before  the  time,  when  partic- 
ulars were  not  necessary,  it  being  simply  stated  that  the 
animals  should  be  preserved  by  pairs.  The  second  in- 
struction was  given  just  before  the  animals  were  about 
to  be  collected,  and  it  was  added  that  in  the  case  of 
clean  beasts  used  for  sacrifice,  not  one  pair,  but  seven 
pairs,  should  be  preserved. 

Still  another  example  is  found  in  the  case  of  Abraham 
and  Isaac  who  are  each  said  to  have  made  a  covenant 
with  the  Philistine  king  Abimilech,in  respect  to  wells  of 
water  at  Beersheba.  The  critics  say  that  these  are  vary- 
ing accounts  of  the  same  transaction,  and  what  the  one 
tradition  ascribed  to  Abraham,  the  other  ascribed  to  Isaac. 
But  why  should  we  come  to  such  a  conclusion  ?  The 
transaction  is  so  natural,  and  so  important  in  all  patri- 
archal life,  that  it  was  likely  to  recur  again  and  again  and 
again.  That  both  treated  with  Abimilech  at  difi'erent 
periods  of  time,  does  not  weigh  against  two  transactions, 
for  Abimilech  was  the  permanent  title  of  the  Philistine 
king,  as  Pharoah  was  the  permanent  designation  of  the 
Egyptian  king.     It  is  more  natural  that  both   Abraham 


CHAPTER  XXVI.    DOUBLE  EVENTS.        18l 

and  Isaac  made  such  a  covenant,  than  that  only  one  of 
them  did  so. 

Another  illustration  of  the  slender  foundation  of  good 
judgment  on  which  the  analysis  of  these  double  records 
rest,  is  the  case  of  the  promise  of  a  son  to  Sarah.  This 
promise  is  twice  described.  But  that  is  natural.  In 
Gen.  17.  16-19  we  simply  have  the  first  intimation  that  the 
the  promised  seed  was  to  be  Sarah's  child.  Gen.  18  : 
10-14  belongs  to  an  event  that  occurred  later. 

So,  if  there  were  space,  one  might  proceed  through 
the  Pentateuch  and  take  up  all  the  cases  of  supposed 
double  record,  and  find  even  from  internal  evidence  alone 
that  the  critical  hypothesis  is  doubtful  and  inconclusive. 

But  the  new  theory  has  a  still  heavier  burden  upon  it 
in  this  matter.  It  not  only  assumes  a  single  transaction 
on  the  ground  of  resemblance  in  a  number  of  particulars, 
but  it  does  so  in  defiance  of  the  explicit  statement  of  the 
record.  It  sets  the  direct  testimony  of  the  sacred  histo- 
rian aside.  It  sets  up  its  own  uncertain  judgment  on 
the  internal  evidence  as  a  certainty,  and  at  the  same  time 
sets  aside  the  historian  as  beinsr  in  error. 


18!^  DOUBLE   NARRATIVES. 


CHAPTER    XXVII. 

npHE  negative  theory  assumes  that  any  writing 
which  can  be  Decomposed  into  Two  or  more 
continuous  and  self-consistent  Narratives,  is  a  Com- 
pilation of  those  narriatves.  By  extracting  all  the 
double  and  triple  records,  and  all  the  different  points  of 
view  of  the  same  subject  from  a  historical  work,  and 
then  sorting  them  according  to  their  likenesses  into  two 
or  three  lots,  and  piecing  each  of  the  lots  together  into  a 
narrative,  one  can  decompose  almost  any  work  of  this 
nature  into  "original"  documents.  If  there  are  any 
parts  left  over,  which  do  not  fit  into  any  particular  lot 
very  well,  those  parts  may  be  assigned  to  one  of  the  re- 
dactors or  editors,  as  the  connecting  link  by  which  he 
united  the  several  lots  into  one.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  gaps  in  the  connection  in  any  one  of  these 
pieced  up  documents,  there  is  a  place  where  the  original 
document  contained  matter  that  is  now  missing,  be- 
cause the  redactor  in  cutting  up  the  document  into  parts 
and  intertwining  it  with  parts  of  other  documents,  failed 
to  use  or  insert  the  matter  in  any  place,  and  so  it  was 
not  preserved  from  loss. 

This  is  the  only  possible  way  to  decompose  a  book  on 
internal  evidence.     How  insecure  it  is,  can  be  seen  with- 


DOUBLE   NARRATIVES.  183 

out  reflection.  A  certain  Professor  sarcastically  decom- 
posed the  book  of  Romans,  whose  unity  is  not  doubted, 
on  this  very  plan.  Another  Professor  ^  is  certain  that 
Knight's  History  of  England  could  be  thus  decomposed. 
One  strand  could  be  extricated  which,  taken  by  itself, 
might  quite  well  be  named,  A  History  of  English  Liter- 
ature. Another  would  read  well  as,  A  History  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  England.  Still  another  could  be 
disentangled  which  would  unfold  the  historical  tale  of 
the  English  colonies.  Still  another  original  document 
would  treat  of  England's  Civil  and  Foreign  Wars.  And 
a  final  one  would  describe  the  progress  of  the  English 
people  in  the  fine  and  useful  arts  and  the  efi"ects  thereby 
produced  on  their  social  condition.  Here  are  five  origi- 
inal  documents,  prettily  delimited.  Going  back  to 
ancient  history,  the  Professor  says  he  could  decompose 
Caesar's  Commentaries  on  the  Gallic  War  into  four  simi- 
lar documents.  If  the  same  pains,  scholarship  and  learn- 
ing were  put  upon  Csesar's  narrative  as  have  been  put 
upon  the  Mosaic  writings,  no  doubt  the  conclusion  that 
Caesar  never  wrote  the  Commentaries,  might  be  made 
as  imposing  as  the  conclusion  that  Moses  did  not 
write  the  Pentateuch.  And  if,  in  spite  of  that  conclu- 
sion, our  judgment  tells  us  that  Caesar,  politician,  ob- 
server, scholar, soldier  and  historian,  was  just  the  man  to 
have  written  the  whole  himself ;  so  similarly  it  is  possible 
that  our  judgment  may  tell  us  that,  in  spite  of  the  nega- 
tive conclusion  of  the  post-exilian  origin  of  the  Penta- 
1  Prof.  Breckenridge. 


184  CHAPTER  XXVII.  DOUBLE   NARRATIVE. 

teuch,  Moses,  acquainted  with  all  the  learning  of  the 
Egyptians,  liberator  of  an  enslaved  people,  legislator, 
founder  of  religious  institutions,  soldier,  historian,  was 
just  the  man  to  write  what  the  records  have  always  said 
he  did  write. 


SIMILARITY   OF    STYLE.  186 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

'T^HE  negative  theory  assumes  that,  in  two  com- 
pared   writings,   Similarity    of   Style    assures 
Identity  of  Authorship. 

This  is  a  fallacy.  It  is  more  easy  for  two  authors^  if 
they  have  the  same  order  of  mind,  the  same  subject  and 
thought,  the  same  training,  the  same  atmosphere  and  en- 
vironment, the  same  common  fund  of  information,  to 
have  some  striking  resemblances  and  similarities^  than  to 
avoid  them. 

An  illustration  of  the  viciousness  of  the  application  of 
this  fallacy,  is  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  higher 
criticism,  by  Ignatius  Donelly,  in  his  "The  Great 
Cryptogram,"  and  by  others,  to  prove  that  there  never 
was  a  Shakespeare  and  that  the  latter' s  plays  were  writ- 
ten by  Francis  Bacon. 

It  appears  that  Bacon  kept  a  commonplace  book, 
which  is  now  in  the  British  Museum  and  which  contains 
1655  entries.  Many  of  the  suggestive  and  striking 
phrases,  proverbs,  aphorisms,  metaphors  and  quaint 
turns  of  expression  jotted  down  in  it  are  also  found  in 
the  plays  of  the  traditional  Shakespeare.  Mrs.  Pott 
counts  4,402  instances  of  reproduction,  "some  of  them 
in  more  or  less  covert  form."     They  appear  to  a  limited 


186        CHAPTER  XXVIII. 


SIMILARITY   OF   THOUGHT. 


extent  in  Bacon's  prose,  but  they  were  his  * 'particular 
storehouse  for  the  composition  of  the  plays." 

For  instance,  "two  of  these  entries  appear  in  a  single 
sentence  in  Romeo  and  Juliet.  One  is  the  unusual 
phrase,  'golden  sleep,'  and  the  second,  the  new  word 
'uproused.'  ''To  one  familiar  with  the  laws  of  chance," 
says  the  critic  of  the  new  school,  "these  coincidences 
will  have  nearly  the  force  of  mathematical  demonstra- 
tion." 

Many  other  coincidences,  even  more  amusing,  and  so 
absurd  as  to  constitute  a  rich  satire  on  the  methods  of 
the  modern  Higher  Criticism,  are  also  cited  in  proof  of 
the  negative  theory.  To  the  strongest  ones,  shown  in 
the  following  comparative  table,  the  critic  prefixes  the 
statement  that  "Peculiarities  of  thought,  style  and  dic- 
tion are  more  important  in  a  contested  case  of  author- 
ship than  the  name  of  the  title  page." 


PROM   SHAKESPEARE. 

To  thine  own  self  be  true 
And  it  must  follow.as  tlie  night 

the  day, 
Thou  canst  not  then  be  false  to 

any  mii,n,— Hamlet,  i.  3. 
Losers  will  have  leave 
To  ease  their  stomachs  with 

their    bitter    tongues.  — 

Tiius  Andronicus,  iii.l. 
The  ivy    which   had   hid   my 

princely  trunk, 
And  sucked  my  verdure  out 

oxCt.— Tempest,  1.2. 
Brother,  you  have  a  vice   of 

mercy  in  you, 
"Which  better  fits  a  lion  than  a 

man.— ^ro^7ws  and  Cres- 

sida,  V.  3. 


FROM  BACON. 

Be  so  true  to  thyself  as  thou 
be  not  false  to  other5.— 
Essay  of  Wisdom. 


Always  let  losers  have  their 
words.— r/ie  Promus. 

It  was  ordained  that  this  wind- 
ing-ivy of  a  Plantagenet 
should  kill  the  tree  itself. 
—History  Henry  VII. 

For  of  lions  it  is  said  that  their 
fury  ceaseth  toward  any- 
thing that  yieldeth  and 
prostrateth  itself.  —  Of 
Charity. 


With  this  internal  evidence  we  must  take  that  of  the 


SIMILARITY    OF   STYLE.  187 

cryptogram, and  also  the  following  points  of  circumstan- 
tial evidence.     Bacon's  high  birth,  his  aristocratic  con- 
nections, his  projects  for  philosophical  reform,  his  aspira- 
tions for  official  honors  and  employment,  and  his  fear  of 
compromising  himself  at  Court,  would  have  caused  him 
to  shrink  from  openly  producing  plays  for  the  theatre  of 
the  day,  and  have  compelled  him  to  write  them   anony- 
mously.    Again,  Sir  Toby  Matthew,  receiving  "a  great 
and  noble  token  of  favor''  from  Bacon,  wrote  to  him  : 
•'  The  most  prodigious    wit  that   I  ever  knew,  of  my 
nation  and  of  this  side  of  the  sea,  is  of  your  lordship's 
name,  though  he  be  known  by  another."     There  is  no 
reason,  says  the  new  theory,  why  the  token  presented 
was  not    the    folio  edition  of   the    Shakspeare    plays. 
Finally,  Bacon  was  known  to  be  the  most  original,  im- 
aginative and  learned  man  of  his  time,  while  of    Shak- 
speare we  know  little.     From  this  evidence  the  Higher 
or  Literary  Criticism  arrives  at  a  conclusive  demonstra- 
tion that  there  never  was  a  Shakspeare  ! 

The  Higher  Criticism  makes  extensive  use  of  this  line 
of  evidence  in  Biblical  fields.  It  combines  the  internal 
and  the  circumstantial,  or  failing  in  the  latter,  relies  on 
the  internal  alone,  to  prove  that  a  writing  could  not  be 
the  product  of  its  purported  author.  Its  facts  in  some 
instances  make  a  case  that  is  far  more  feeble  than  the 
case  made  out  against  Shakspeare,  referred  to  above. 

Indeed,  it  goes  to  the  length  of  separating  out  parts 
of  single  writings,  in  a  group  of  writings,  and  of  assign- 
ing the  parts  to  various  unknown  authors  on  the  strength 


188  CHA.PTER   XXVIII.  SIMILARITY  OF   STYLE. 

of  internal  literary  evidence  alone.  Thus  it  says,  in 
comparing  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  wherever,  in 
certain  writings,  we  find  a  certain  free,  flowing  and 
picturesque  style,  excelling  in  the  power  of  delineating 
life  and  character,  in  eage,  grace  and  directness  of  narra- 
tion, in  delicacy  and  truthfulness  of  dialogue,  in  forcible 
portrayal  of  personality,  and  in  lack  of  recurring  phrases, 
then  we  may  be  sure  that  these  parts  are  the  product  of 
one  redactor's  pen,  JE. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  says,  where  we  find  an  unornate, 
measured,  precise  style,  with  frequent  recurrence  of 
stereotyped  phrases,  prosaic  utterance,  definite  propor- 
tions and  figures, sytematic  arrangement  and  concrete  de- 
tail, whether  the  writings  be  found  in  Genesis,  ^  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Chronicles  or  Ezekiel,  there  we  may  be  sure 
that  they  are  all  the  product  of  another  redactor's  pen,  P. 
The  same  principle  is  applied  with  equal  confidence  and 
riskiness  to  the  Psalms  and  the  prophetical  writings. 

1  See  Prof.  E.  F.  Weidner  on  Genesis,  Studies  II  and  III. 


DISSIMILAR   STYLE.  189 


T 


CHAPTER    XXIX. 

HE  negative  theory  assumes  that  Dissimilar 
Style  assures  Diverse  Authorship.  It  takes 
for  granted  that  because  an  Old  Testament  writer  has 
a  characteristic  style  and  vocabulary,  he  could  have  had 
no  different  one  in  a  different  writing,  and  that  all  writ- 
ings differing  from  this  recognized  characteristic  style, 
could  not  have  been  produced  by  him,  but  must  be  as- 
signed to  another.  It  allows  him  no  spontaneity  or  ver- 
satility in  style.  If  he  diverges  but  a  hair  breadth  from 
what  the  critic  considers  the  writer's  characteristic 
manner,  a  redactor  is  at  once  brouo^ht  in  to  account  for 
the  divergency. 

When  men  judge  the  Bible  from  purely  literary  stan- 
dards, it  should  at  least  be  treated  fairly,  in  accordance 
with  those  standards.  In  every  age  and  literature,  au- 
thors show  the  influence  on  them  of  circumstances,  of 
surroundings,  of  their  own  change  of  character  and  life. 
Some  authors  display  surprisingly  contradictory  traits  of 
style  in  different  parts  of  their  writings.  "If  history 
had  not  given  unimpeachable  witness,  could  we  believe 
that  the  author  of  'The  Cid'  was  the  author  of  'Otho 
and  Attila.'  "  If  we  had  no  other  guide  but  that  of  our 
own  personal  literary  sense,  would  we  not  be  ready  to 


190  CHAPTER  XIIX.  DISSIMILAR   STYLE. 

laugh   at  the  very  idea  that  certain  authors  wrote  what 
they  actually  did  ? 

Who  would  suppose  that  the  youth  who  in  a  forgotten 
little  volume,  in  1844,  echoed  the  voices  of  Byron,  Scott, 
and  Moore,  would  two  years  later  be  writing  a  book  of 
travels  in  genuine  prose,  peerless  as  to  popularity,  and 
without  a  trace  of  sentimentalism.  Or  that,  twenty  years 
later  the  unstudied  freshness  of  "Views  Afoot"  would  be 
transformed  into  the  polished  prose  in  which  "Egypt 
and  Ireland"  is  written.  Or,  that  the  author  of  these 
travels  which  tell  us  of  scenery  and  external  things,  was 
also  the  author  of  those  charming  private  letters  in  which 
he  puts  all  that  he  has  to  say  of  the  men  and  women 
whose  friendship  he  had  gained  in  going  over  the  world. 
Or,  that  the  same  man  was  a  daily  newspaper  corre- 
spondent, a  public  lecturer,  an  editor  of  books  of  biog- 
raphy, a  composer  of  prefaces,  all  in  simple,  clear,  good 
English  ;  and  a  literary  critic  whose  compact  and  learned 
criticisms  are  the  most  precious  portion  of  his  prose  la- 
bor, and  whose  reviews  in  later  years  were  so  catholic, 
so  correct  of  canon  and  exact  in  detail  as  to  be  models. 

Or  that  he  was  also  the  author  of  those  picturesque 
pioneer  paintings  of  the  new  Eldorado  in  the  far  West 
in  1849,  entitled  "Calafornian  Ballads";  and  that  a  few 
years  later  his  voice  would  be  sounding  from  the  far 
East  in  those  vivid  and  harmonious  "Poems  of  the 
Orient,"  so  redolent  of  the  life  and  sentiment  of  the 
lands  depicted,  that  in  them  we  hear  the  rich  and  lan- 
guorous notes  of  oriental  exuberance,  and  see  th«  verg- 


DISSIMILAR   STYLE. 


191 


ing  skies  of  Egypt,  the  Desert,  the  Syrian  Coast,  Da- 
mascus and  Persia.  Who  would  dream  that  this  author 
would  then  turn  to  chaste  and  simple  home  scenes  of 
rural  life  in  "The  Pennsylvania  Farmer,"  and  "The 
Quaker  Widow;"  and  that  he,  a  Quaker  born  and  bred, 
would  write  bnllads  founded  on  our  Civil  War,  and  drift- 
ing to  the  Hindoo  mythological  realm  evolve  a  faultless 
idyl  celebrating  the  legend  of  the  coming  of  Camadeva. 
Or  that  he  also  looked  to  the  cold  and  dreary  land  of  the 
Norse  and  produced  a  pastoral  poem  of  Norway  which 
is  said  to  excel  in  interest  and  finish  every  idyl  in  Eng- 
lish, of  similar  length,  except  Evangeline.  Or  that  then 
finally  he  would  put  forth  a  series  of  serio-comic  papers, 
revealing  abundant  humor  and  talent  for  parody  and 
the  burlesque. 

Who  would  believe  that  he  would  be  the  one  too  to  so 
teach  himself  the  classics  that,  according  to  our  greatest 
living  literary  critic,  he  was  more  infused  with  the  an- 
tique sentiment  than  many  a  learned  Theban,  his  "Hy- 
las,"  for  instance,  being  a  classic,  its  strong  blank  verso 
being  rendered  liquid  and  soft  by  feminine  endings,  its 
Dorian  grace  being  infused  with  just  enough  sentiment 
to  make  it  effective  in  modern  times. 

Or  that,  still  more  surprisingly,  he  in  addition  also 
mastered  the  German  language  and  style,  writing  in  it, 
and  thinking  in  it,  untU  it  became  a  native  tongue  with 
him,  his  translation  of  Goethe's  Faust  being  so  great  and 
go  quickly  done  that  the  literary  world  at  first  refused 


192  CHAPTER   XXIX.  DISSIMILAR   STYLE. 

to  believe  that  he  was  not  humbugging  it  ;i  and  his  Eng- 
lish style  becoming  so  affected  by  the  change  in  his  mode 
of  thought  that  it  now  seemed  involved,  and  touched 
with  a  metaphysical  vagueness  even  in  his  lyrical  writing. 

To  cap  the  climax  of  the  critic-in-the  corner's  aston- 
ishment, he  began  to  write  novels,  which  sold  largely. 
He  turned  to  the  drama,  taking  his  theme  from  Joe 
Smith  and  the  Mormons.  He  expressed  his  views  on 
theology  in  "The  Masque  of  the  Gods."  And,  finally, 
he  wrote  and  in  person  recited  the  "Centennial  Ode"  at 
the  Old  State  House  in  Philadelphia,  on  July  Fourth, 
1876. 

He  was  only  a  country  boy,  a  farmer's  son:  he  became 
a  cosmopolitan.  He  was  a  Quaker  :  he  became  a  leader 
of  Eesthetic  thought  in  New  York.  He  was  a  poet  :  he 
became  minister  of  the  United  States  to  Germany  and  re- 
sided in  Berlin.  And  every  phase  of  his  life  and  thought 
was  reflected  in  his  writings. 

What  shall  we  say  to  these  things  ?  They  sound  like 
romance.  They  are  history.  If  Bayard  Taylor  in  our 
own  day  and  under  our  own  eye  has  given  us  an  illus- 
tration of  the  possibilities  in  variety  and  range  and  al- 
most contradiction  of  style  and  subject,  and  aspect,  that 
is  far  greater  in  compass  than  any  that  is  claimed,  by 
even  the  most  conservative  Biblical  scholar,  for  any  of 
the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament;   can  we  not    see  how 

1  It  became  the  dream  of  his  life  to  write  the  biography  of 
Goethe  and  of  Schiller.  He  made  extended  researches  for  that 
purpose. 


DISSIMILAR   STYLE.  193 

faolish  it  is  for  the  negative  critics  to  say  that  a  Moses 
or  a  David,  whose  history  and  education  and  oppor- 
tunities were  equally  romantic,  must  be  limited  to  one 
single  quality  of  style,  all  variety  having  been  added  by 
redactors.  Truly  there  is  nothing  more  deceptive  than 
internal  literary  characteristics  as  a  criterion  of  author- 
ship; and  if  Bayard  Taylor  had  been  in  Moses'  place, and 
his  writings  had  contained  the  inspired  supernatural 
features  of  Moses'  writings,  the  Higher  Criticism  would 
now  be  proving  with  positive  certainty,  from  internal 
criteria,  that  Taylor  was  a  Myth  ! 

The  applicable  objections  that  may  be  brought  against 
this  illustration  will,  if  searched  to  their  inner  essence, 
but  confirm  its  validity.  Diversity  of  styles  in  different 
productions,  at  different  periods,  can  be  admitted,  and 
yet  a  single  production,  it  may  be  urged,  must  have  a 
necessary  unity  of  style,  possible  to  be  detected.  But 
it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  the  Pentateuch  is  a 
single  production,  or  that  it  was  written  all  at  one  period. 
And  even  in  a  very  short  section,  or  within  the  unity  of 
a  single  literary  form,  there  may  be  the  greatest  variety 
of  form  and  style.  If  Moses  were  as  versatile  as  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes — and  why  should  he  not  be — he  could 
show  the  most  opposite  contrasts  of  thought  and  style 
in  close  juxtaposition,  or  even  in  alternate  lines.  The 
supposed  interblending  of  styles,  even  if  it  should  become 
necessary  to  concede  that  the  style  is  not  itself  a  unity  and 
could  not  arise  naturally  from  the  diversity  of  subject 
matter  to  be  treated,  would  not  be  an  objection.  Moses 
miay  have  been  his  own  blender. 


194  CHAPTER  XXIX.  ANALOGY. 

'T^HERE  can  be  no  objection  by  the  negative  critics 
to  the  use  of  analogy,  by  way  of  illustration,  as 
applied  to  the  Old  Testament,  from  other  literatures  and 
writings  and  authors,  in  the  foregoing  pages.  For  it  is 
on  analogy  that  the  negative  system  is  built.  And  the 
analogy  is  not  simply  by  way  of  illustration,  but  it  is 
the  foundation.  That  the  Old  Testament  religion  must 
be  analogous  to  other  religions  ;  that  the  Old  Testament 
Writings  cannot  be  exceptional,  in  their  origin,  from 
other  writings  ;  that  the  principle  of  development  opera- 
ting in  the  physical  world  and  in  the  history  of  the  race, 
must  extend  by  analogy  to  the  History  of  Israel,  this  is 
the  centre  and  core  of  the  negative  theory.  And  it  is 
but  analogy.  Moreover  the  critics  are  accustomed  to 
refer  to  other  writings,  to  Homer,  to  the  sagas,  and 
formerly  to  the  Vedas,  as  analogies  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion, and  they  cannot  really  complain  if  their  own 
method  is  fairly  turned  against  them. 

I N  estimating  the  critical  value  of  Internal  Evidence, 
in  the  foregoing  pages,  we  have  examined,  in  a  series, 
the  literary  principles  of  probability,  inconsistency, 
fairness  to  single  passages,  double  events,  double  narra- 
tives, single  authorship   and  diverse  authorship. 

The  negative  theory  fails  to  note  that  the  application 
of  all  such  internal  canons,  on  either  side,  must  ever  be 
subjective,  and  sometimes  arbitrary,  depending  on  the 
shifting  insights  of  the  individual  mind  and  moment. 
We   have  seen,    for   instance,  that  there  is  no  external 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  195 

landmark  for  the  list  of  authors,  Jehovists,  Elohists, 
etc.,  or  for  the  demarcation  of  the  fragments  that  are 
said  to  have  come  from  them.  What  reliable  judgment 
can  be  passed  upon  the  original  form  and  authorship  of 
those  documents  and  fragments  ?  If  further  undiscov- 
ered changes  and  unsuspected  alterations  are  still 
among  the  possibilities,  and  if  unreal  conjectural  emen- 
dators  may  be  "summoned  up  to  clear  difficulties  and 
stumbling  blocks  out  of  the  path  of  the  hypothesis," 
what  actual  result  can  it  arrive  at  ?  Canon  Driver  him- 
self admits!  that  "the  analysis  is  frequently  uncertain, 
and,  will,  perhaps,  always  continue  so."  Much  of  it  is 
an  impossibility.  "Moses  may  have  used  documents. 
But  he  has  so  woven  them  inextricably  into  the  texture 
of  an  original  work,  that  they  cannot  now  be  separated. 
He  may  have  used  scribes  as  Bezaleel  used  carpenters 
and  goldsmiths.  But  if  so,  all  the  material  used  has 
been  combined  by  the  force  of  one  great  mind  inspired 
for  the  work,  so  that  every  attempt  to  separate  the  ma- 
terials is  in  vain,  the  completed  work  coming  down  to 
us  fused  by  the  power  and  stamped  with  the  authority  of 
Moses,  the  man  of  God." 

13  UT  Internal  Evidence,  the  only  and  chosen  witness 
for  the  negative  theory,  when  we  come  to  examine 
its  testimony,  presents  some  general  considerations  of 
which  the  new  theory  fails  to  note  the  significance,  and 
which  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapters,  may  turn  out 
to  be  damaging  evidence  against  it. 
1  "IntroductioB,"  p  xiii. 


196  GENERAL   CONSISTENCY. 


CHAPTER   XXX. 

rpHE   negative  theory  fails   to  note  the  force  of 
the  argument  from  general  internal  consistency. 

Take  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  a  strong  presumption  in  its 
favor,  that  the  whole,  as  a  whole,  forms  a  unit  in  plan, 
purpose  and  theme.  In  spite  of  such  divergencies  as  the 
details  of  history  and  of  actual  life  ever  verify,  the  book 
is  not  an  artificial  construction,  but  an  organic  growth. 
Its  laws  are  interwoven  in  the  historic  background,  and 
there  is  no  intimation  that  they  ever  existed  separately. 
The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  consists  of  three  addresses 
by  Moses  to  the  people  and  an  historical  appendix. 
"These  addresses  are  intimately  related  to  one  another 
and  to  the  laws  which  are  included  in  the  second  ad- 
dress; the  aim  of  the  whole  being  to  urge  Israel  to  obey 
these  laws.  The  style  and  language  are  identical  ;  one 
spirit  reigns  throughout,  and  like  recurring  phrases  fre- 
quently reappear.  The  objections  to  the  unity  of  the 
main  body  of  the  book,  and  to  Moses  as  its  author,  are 
of  the  most  trivial  description.  In  the  appendix,  Moses 
is  expressly  said  to  have  written  the  song,  and  to  have 
spoken  the  blessing.  That  he  did  not  write  chapter 
thirty-four  is  plain   from   its    contents. 

"The  laws  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  are  so 


CHAPTER   XXX.  GENERAL   CONSISTENCY.  19*7 

intimately  blended  with  the  history  as  to  be  inseparable. 
Whoever  wrote  the  one  must  have  written  the  other  like- 
wise. And  Genesis  is  plainly  conceived  and  written  as 
introductory  to  the  Mosaic  history  and  legislation.  One 
consistent  topic  and  method  of  treatment  is  pursued 
throughout  the  Pentateuch  ;  the  genealogies  are  contin- 
uous, and  mutually  supplementary  ;  a  consistent  chro- 
nology is  maintained  ;  there  are  implications  and  allu- 
sions in  one  portion  to.  what  is  found  in  other  portions 
by  way  of  anticipation  or  reminiscence,  which  bind  all 
together." 

Let  us  turn  from  the  Pentateuch  to  the  Psalms. 
There  are  Psalms  in  which  all  the  events  of  the 
exodus  and  the  history  of  Israel  as  far  as  the  first 
king,  are  recalled.  What  rational  principle  allows  their 
composition  to  be  assigned  to  a  period  eight  or  nine  cen- 
turies further  on?  "These  form  a  large  number  whose 
date  would  be  irrevocably  fixed,  if  it  was  a  question  of 
any  other  book  than  the  Bible."  Then  there  are  nu- 
merous Psalms  in  which  royalty  plays  an  elevated  and 
prevailing  part.  Could  these  have  been  written  centuries 
after  the  kings  had  disappeared  ;  in  the  very  centuries 
when  it  is  supposed  the  Jews  were  given  to  satire  against 
kings  ? 

The  chief  arguments  for  the  post-exilian  date  of  Dav- 
idic  Psalms  virtually  rest  upon  the  improbability,  that 
"the  versatile,  condottiere,  chieftan,  and  king"  ^  com- 
posed such  spiritual  and  saintly  songs  as  those  attributed 

I  Cheyne. 


198  CHAPTER  TIX.  GENERAL   CONSISTENCY. 

to  him.  At  the  same  time  negative  critics  have  not  hes- 
itated to  hold  that  the  Psalms  are  "the  war  songs  of  the 
Maccabees."  'So  that  "at  one  time  we  are  told  that 
these  sacred  hymns  are  irreconcilable  with  the  military 
character  of  David  ;  and,  again,  that  they  form  the 
hymn-book  of  a  people  always  under  arms!" 

It  is  true  beyond  the  possibility  of  argument  that  Da- 
vid was  a  warrior  king.  But  it  is  not  entirely  true  that 
he  was  a  warrior  by  nature.  War  was  forced  upon  him. 
He  was  for  a  long  time  "the  player  of  the  harp  who 
charmed  Saul,  and  stilled  the  latter' s  frenzy  by  his  song 
and  music."  There  have  been  many  other  great  men  who 
combined  arms  and  song.  The  military  cares  of  Fred- 
erick the  Great  did  not  prevent  his  cultivation  of  the  po- 
etic art,  and  we  Americans  have  had  a  general  of 
whom  it  was  said  that  "His  pen  is  greater  than  his 
sword."  Is  it  at  all  strange  that  the  king,  who  danced 
and  played  on  the  harp  before  the  holy  ark,  who  was  the 
restorer  of  the  sacred  ceremonies  and  of  liturgical  song, 
should  have  composed  or  caused  to  be  composed  a  great 
number  of  songs  ?  Many  of  those  attributed  to  him  fall  in 
so  completely  with  the  circumstances  which  are  said  to 
have  occasioned  them  that  they  cannot  be  torn  apart  ex- 
cept in  an  arbitrary  way."  For  instance,  the  132d 
Psalm,  where  David  speaks  of  himself  and  swears  that 
he  will  not  enter  his  palace  until  he  has  found  a  place  of 
habitation  for  the  God  of  Jacob, — can  it  be  imagined  that 
it  was  composed  at  another  time,  and  of  all  times,  two 
or  three  centuries  before  our  era  ?    And  then  there  is  the 


GENEBAL   CONSISTEKCT.  19d 

eulogy  on  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  as  well  as  the 
hymn  of  2d  Samuel  7,  composed  by  David. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  also  that  our  acquaintance 
with  David's  history  may  be  incomplete  ;^  that  he  may 
have  stood  in  situations  similar  to  those  in  which  others 
were  placed  in  later  ages  ;  and  that  he  may  have  given 
expression  to  Israelitish  thoughts,  which,  though  not  of 
general  human  interest,  did  not  change  with  the  chang- 
ing times. 

In  the  case  of  the  Historical  Books,  if  we  take  such  an 
account  as  that  of  the  procession  that  escorted  the  ark 
to  Jerusalem  as  given  in  Samuel,  and  compare  it  with 
the  account  in  Chronicles,  we  shall  find,  not  incompati- 
bility, but  two  great  complementary  types  of  history, 
*'that  which  leans  to  epic  narrative,  and  the  scientific 
history  that  makes  selection  of  details  upon  some  prin- 
ciple,—in  the  case  of  Chronicles,  with  a  view  to  their 
bearing  upon  the  priestly  service."^ 

On  the  whole  the  argument  from  internal  consistency 
militates  against  the  theory  of  a  post-exilian  pious  fraud, 
unheard  of  in  the  history  of  the  world.  The  nature  of 
the  books  said  to  have  been  written  then  is  incompati- 
ble with  the  state  of  Asiatic  civilization  after  Cyrus. 

1  Dr.  E.  Koenig  of  Eostock,  who  in  his  very  recent  work  on 
"Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament"  verges  again  more  toward 
traditional  beliefs. 

I  Prof.  R.  G.  Moulton. 


200  LITERARY   DEVELOPMENT. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

npHE  negative  theory  fails  to  note  the  true  drift  of 

the  argument  from  kind  of  subject,  nature  of 

thought,  progress  of  style  and  literary  development. 

One  would  not  put  the  Nibelungen  Lied,  the  Chroni- 
cles of  Froissart  and  the  Tales  of  Chaucer  down  as  the 
product  of  the  reflective  and  philosophical  writers  of  the 
last  century.  Yet  that  is  about  what  the  new  theory 
does  in  respect  to  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  In 
any  other  literature  we  would  expect  first  the  national 
epic,  then  the  national  lyric,  and  then  the  philosophical 
and  critical  eras.  But  here,  the  magnificent  epics  of 
Genesis  and  Exodus  are  considered  the  result  of  a  scribe's 
or  a  whole  school's  constructing  an  artificial  and  ingeni- 
ous piecework  in  the  very  latest  period  of  Israel's  his- 
tory. It  seems  to  us  impossible  that  this  should  be  so — 
that  the  kind  of  subject,  the  nature  of  thought  and 
method  of  literary  development  should  be  so  inverted 
and  unnatural.  Examine  the  narration  of  the  Plagues 
of  Egypt,  for  instance.  They  occur  in  their  epic  and 
archaean  form  in  the  eight  chapters  of  Exodus.  Then 
ages  after,  they  are  reproduced  in  lyric  form  by  the 
Psalmist ;  ^  and  finally  they  appear  in  a  picturesque  mod- 

1    78.  42  ;  105.  23. 


LITERAKY   DEVELOPMENT.  201 

crn  form  in  the  book  of  Wisdom.  »  In  Exodus,  "the 
successive  physical  convulsions  pass  before  us  like  a 
moving  panorama,  and  against  this  ever-darkening  back- 
ground are  coming  more  and  more  into  relief  two  heroic 
figures,— Pharaoh  with  the  hardening  heart,  and  Moses 
the  wonder-working  deliverer, — until  the  whole  finds  a 
double  climax  in  Pharaoh  with  his  hosts  overthrown  in 
the  Red  Sea,  and  Moses  leading  the  delivered  Israelites 
in  a  song  of  triumph.  In  the  Psalms  we  again  come 
upon  the  plagues  of  Egypt.  But  now  the  description  is 
lyric  ;  each  incident  appears  artistically  diminished  until 
it  is  no  more  than  a  link  in  a  chain  of  providence  ;  each 
plague  is  told  in  a  clause,  with  only  the  lyric  rhythm  to 
convey  the  march  of  events.  A  third  account  is  found 
in  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  Here  the  reverent  curiosity  of 
a  later  age  has  ventured  to  read  into  the  reticence  of  the 
earlier  narrative  a  whole  array  of  terrible  details.  Where 
Exodus  spoke  of  a  ''darkness  that  might  be  felt,"  the 
author  of  Wisdom  imagines  all  that  the  imprisoned 
Egyptians  felt  in  the  overpowering  dark  :  the  strange 
apparitions,  the  sad  visions  with  heavy  countenance,  the 
sound  of  falling  noises,  the  dread  of  the  very  air  which 
could  on  no  side  be  avoided,  and  themselves  to  them- 
selves more  dreadful  than  the  darkness.  Thus  on  this 
one  topic  we  have  three  literary  styles  perfectly  illus- 
trated ;  and  no  more  possibility  of  controversy  in  the 
whole  than  if  we  were  listening  to  Handel's  oratorio  of 
Israel  in  Egypt."' 

3    11.5-26.    17.1-18. 

•  Prof,  R.  G.  Moulton, 


202         CHAPTER  XXXI.  LtTERART   DEVELOPMENT. 

Prof.  Margoliouth,  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  a  most 
brilliant    Semitic    scholar,    arguing    against    the    posi- 
tions,   and   replying   to  the  attacks,  of  Cheyne,  Driver, 
Neubauer  and  Noldenke,  maintains  from  a  study  of  the 
original   language   of  the   book    of  Ecclesiasticus,  that 
the  original  language   of  this    book   of  the   Apocrypha, 
written  about  200  B.  C,  which  was  then    "the  classical 
language  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  medium  for  prayer  and 
philosophical  and  religious  instruction  and  speculation" 
is  so  different  from  that  of  the  books  of  the   Old   Testa- 
ment"  in  its  philosophical   and   religious  terms,  in  its 
idioms  and   particles   as  well   as   in  its  grammar    and 
structure,  that  between  the  language  of  Ecclesiasticus 
and  that  o'f  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  there   must 
be  centuries — nay,    there  must  lie,    in  most  cases,  the 
deep  waters  of  the   captivity,  the  grave  of  the   Old  He- 
brew and  the  Old  Israel,  and  the  womb  of  the  New  He- 
brew and  the  New  Israel."     If  he  be  right,  not  only  the 
post-exilian  Pentateuch  and  the  Maccabean  Psalms,  but 
the   Babylonian  Isaiah,  and  the   second-century  Daniel, 
will  be  impossibilities.  In  any  case  the  riddle  would  still 
remain,  how  the  best  religious  lyrics   of  all   antiquity 
were  written  at  a  time   when  Judaism  was  a   downward 
tendency,   and  when  there  were  neither  great  men  to 
write  nor  great  events  to  evoke  such  lyrics. 

That  the  Psalm-book  is  only  the  expression  of  the  re- 
ligious experience  of  Israel  in  the  Persian,  Greek  and 
Maccabean  periods,  is  conspicuously  improbable.  "Ptol- 
emy Philadelphus  in  Psalm  Ixxii  is  a  poor  substitute  for 


LITERARY   DEVELOPMENT.  203 

Solomon  as  a  type  of  the  coming  Messiah,  and  few  will 
make  Psalm  ex  centre  around  Simon  the  Maccabee,  an 
apocryphal  character,  in  opposition  to  the  plain  teaching 
of  our  Divine  Master."  It  is  impossible  to  go  into  the 
many  special  difficulties  encountered  by  the  new  theory 
in  this  view  of  the  Psalms.  Dr.  Koenig,  in  his  recent 
work  referred  to  before,  comes  back  to  the  Davidic  origin 
of  a  number  of  the  Psalms:  "The  point  within  the  tra- 
ditional seventy-three  at  which  we  can  say  'the  prayers 
of  David  the  Son  of  Jesse  are  ended'  is  uncertain." 
The  existence  of  Maccabean  psalms  is  almost  denied. 

But  the  new  theory  cannot  afford  such  a  denial.  It 
needs  to  assume  the  late  origin  of  the  Psalms  to  bolster 
up  "the  great  post-Exile  Jewish  church"  of  which  it 
makes  so  much,  and  of  which  we  know  so  little.  The 
psalms  are  needed  to  be  "a  monument  of  the  best  relig- 
ious ideas  of  that  church."^  It  caunot  afford  to  have 
them  earlier,  because  it  needs  to  find  in  the  earlier  days 
''too  germinal"  a  condition  to  appropriate  the  advanced 
religious  ideas  of  the  Psalms.  The  real  ground  for  as- 
signing so  late  a  date  is  not  the  use  of  certain  names  for 
God,  but  it  is  the  necessity  of  consistency  in  maintain- 
ing the  idea  of  religious  development,  and  the  criteria 
laid  down  by  Cheyne  for  determining  Maccabean  Psalms, 
if  there  were  space  to  discuss  them,  would  be  found  ex- 
ceedingly light  and  vague  either  in  their  essence  or  in 
their  applicability,  for  such  historical  criticism,  especi- 
ally when  it  involves  such  results. 

1  Cheyne. 


204         CHAPTER  XXXI.  LITERARY   DEVELOPMENT. 

'T^HE  negative  theory  misinterprets  the  true  drift  of 
the  argument  from  the  use  of  language,  con- 
structions, and  linguistic  forms.  Any  profitable  dis- 
cussion of  the  views  of  the  new  theory  from  a  mere  lin- 
guistic point  of  view,  is  not  possible,  on  either  side,  o  wing- 
to  the  state  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Many  books  require  to  be 
written  on  the  subject,  and  it  will  be  years  before  textual 
questions  can  be  regarded  as  settled,  even  from  a  nega- 
tive point  of  view.  Internal  evidence  from  mere  verbal 
comparison  has  always  proved  precarious,  and  in  this 
instance  it  is  still  more  so.  Canon  Driver  has  shown, in  his 
work  on  Samuel,  how  much  must  be  done  in  the  matter 
of  lower  criticism.  Only  where  there  is  better  assur- 
ance as  to  the  purity  of  the  text  can  there  be  a  solid 
foundation  for  the  higher  criticism. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  general  argument 
from  language  is  not  in  favor  of  the  new  theory.  "The 
language  of  the  Pentateuch  is  throughout  the  Hebrew  of 
the  purest,  with  no  trace  of  later  words,  or  forms,  or 
constructions,  or  of  the  chaldaeisms  of  the  exile.  There 
are  certain  archaisms  which  are  peculiar  to  it,  and  which 
it  always  uses,  rather  than  the  forms  of  later  develop- 
ment."^ In  wielding  the  linguistic  argument,  on  the 
other  side,  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  form  which  oc- 
curs in  prose  only  in  late  Hebrew  might  conceivably  be 
used  in  poetry  at  a  far  earlier  period.  The  shorter  form 
of  the  first  person  pronoun,  for  example,  the  frequent 
use  of  which  in  prose  is  considered  an  indication  of  late- 

1  Frof.  W.  H.  Green. 


LITERARY   DEVELOPMENT.  205 

ness,  may  possibly  have  been  used  under  certain  circum- 
stances in  the  poetic  diction  of  comparatively  early  times. 
In  general,  when  a  supposed  late  form  occurs  in  a  writing 
which, by  its  own  account  of  itself,  ought  to  be  of  earlier 
date, the  presence  of  the  form  does  not  by  itself  prove  the 
lateness  of  the  origin.  "The  fact  that  the  form  appears  in 
a  passage  of  whose  early  date  there  is  some  historical  evi- 
dence is  proof  of  some  weight  that  the  form  itself  is  as 
early  as  the  passage." 


206  WRITING   BEFORE   MOSES. 


CHAPTER   XXXII. 

'T^HE  negative  theory  assumes  a  primitive  rudeness 
in  the  age  of  the  Exodus,  and  a  lack  of  culture 
in  its  leaders,  which  history  now  disproves.  With  our 
present  knowledge  of  the  age  of  Moses,  it  would  be  a 
strange  thing  to  be  accounted  for,  if  Moses  had  led  Israel 
out  of  Egypt,  and  given  laws,  and  established  a  new  na- 
tion, without  putting  anything  into  writing. 

The  original  main  pillar  of  the  new  theory  was  the  as- 
sumption that  writing  was  unknown  to  the  Israelites  in 
the  age  of  the  Exodus.  But  the  establishment  of  the 
proof  that  the  art  of  writing  was  known  a  thousand  years 
before  ^  Moses;  yes  two  thousand  years  before  *  Moses; 
that  it  was  common  in  Egypt  before  the  Exodus,  and 
practised  in  Palestine  among  the  Hittites  as  early  as 
Abraham,  and  in  the  home  ^  of  Abraham  earlier  still, 
has  rendered  it  necessary  for  the  new  theory  to  abandon 
all  the  work  done  for  it  on  the  supposition  of  the  com- 
paratively late  introduction  of  the  art  of  writing  among 
the  Hebrews. 

1  The  Gudea  Inscriptions  in  Babylonia,  discussed  by  Pinches. 

2  Inscriptions  of  Sargon  I,  assigned  to  3800.  B.  C. 
s  Discoveries  at  NifEer. 


CHAPTER   XXXII.  WRITING   BEFORE   MOSES.        207 

Even  after  abandoning  this  position,  the  new  theory  is 
not  out  of  the  toils.  Its  principle  of  gradual  evolution 
requires  a  low  state  oF  rude  and  primitive  beginnings  at 
the  start,  and  recent  historical  discoveries  do  not  cor- 
roborate such  an  assumption.  All  archaeologists  agree 
that  with  the  earliest  monuments  man  appears  before  us 
with  language  fully  formed.  Never  afterwards  are  the 
signs  of  language  more  beautifully  shaped  and  chiseled 
than  on  the  oldest  Gudea  statue  in  Babylonia,  on  the  nu- 
merous diorite  statues  of  Tello;  on  the  granite  and  lime- 
stone of  the  tablet  of  Senoferw;  of  the  pyramids  of  Unas, 
Pepi,  Mirinri,  of  the  tomb  of  Ti  in  Egypt.  The  long 
and  many  inscriptions  of  Tello  and  of  the  pyramids  show 
the  language  capable  of  expressing  all  religious  thought, 
rich  in  the  terms  of  settled,  civilized,  refined  life,  abun- 
dant in  geographical  names,  and  speaking  of  precious 
woods  and  minerals  as  of  common  possessions."  Here 
is  a  full  development  of  literature  and  civilization, before 
Israel  left  Egypt.  And  it  is  entirely  against  the  primi- 
tive evolution  and  gradual  development  hypothesis  of 
Israelitish  liturature,  which  is  the  very  foundation  of  the 
negative  criticism. 

Up  to  1880  there  were  many  attempts  to  trace  the  evo- 
lution of  the  religion  of  Egypt;  but  by  the  opening  of 
the  inscribed  pyramids  in  1881  all  historical  ground  was 
taken  from  these  speculations— for  these  inscriptions  dis- 
play all  the  main  doctrines  of  the  Egyptian  religion  fully 
elaborated.  This  again  is  against  the  primitive  evolution 
and   gradual   development  hypothesis  of  the  Israelitish 


208  WRITING   BEFORE   MOSES. 

religion,  to  establish  which  is   the  reason  of  existence  of 
the  negative  criticism. 

All  scholars  agree  that  the  art  of  Tello  in  Babylonia 
and  of  the  pyramid  times  in  Egypt  was  the  highest  art 
ever  reached  in  these  lands:  their  earliest  arL  was  their 
best.  It  shows  '"'a  mastery  of  all  details,  an  ease  and 
grace  of  handling,  a  refinement  of  conception  never  at- 
tained again  in  the  centuries  of  these  people.  The 
statues  of  Tello,  the  intaglios  of  early  Clialdea,  the  sta- 
tues and  bas-reliefs  of  early  Egypt,  the  pyramids,  enor- 
mous in  mass,  yet  with  exquisitely  finished,  inscribed, 
painted  inner  passages  and  chambers  ;  the  tomb  of  Ti  at 
Sakpara,  with  its  wealth  of  sharp-cut  letters,  all  bear 
witness  to  this  fact."  And  this  fact  is  the  direct  reverse 
of  the  general  presumption  upon  which  the  negative 
criticism  relies  and  proceeds. 

And  even  development  critics  themselves  are  obliged 
to  admit  that  "there  is  nothing  known  of  Egypt  either 
by  its  records  or  in  its  traditions,  that  goes  to  show  a 
history  that  antedated  a  high  state  of  civilization." 
Thus  Dr.  Edward  Meyer^  says:  'Whoever  undertakes 
to  study  the  ancient  history  of  China  or  Egypt  expect- 
ing to  receive  information  about  the  gradual  improve- 
ment of  civilization,  or  to  become  acquainted  with 
movements  that  throw  light  upon  its  development,  will 
be  greatly  disappointed.  It  is  a  complete,  yea  even  a  su- 
perior, standard  of  development  of  government,  of  art, 
and  of  religion,  that  we  meet  with  in  the  ancient  mon- 
uments of  Egypt." 

1  Geschichte  d,  alten  Egyptens,  p  2.  Berlin,  1877. 


CHAPTER  XXXTI.  WRITING   BEFORE  MOSES.  209 

Besides  the  writings  of  the  monuments,  we  have  also 
the  writings  of  the  re-discovered  manuscripts.  Since  1885 
and  1886  we  have  a  critical  edition  of  the  Book  of  the 
Dead,  "the  Bible  of  the  Old  Egyptians"  from  about 
1700  to  1200  B.  C.  We  now  know  that  even  before 
Moses'  day,  before  the  eighteenth  dynasty,  there  was  a 
sacred  text  in  Egypt  being  handed  down,  and  that  this 
text  was  scrupulously  copied  by  succeeding  generations 
of  copyists.  1  No  less  than  seventy-seven  different  man- 
uscripts of  this  book,  which  consists  of  one  hundred  and 
eighty  prayers,  magical  formulas,  etc.,  have  been  found, 
and  collated. 

One  of  the  vital  premises  of  the  negative  theory  is 
that  "before  600-400  B.  C,  men  cared  little  for,  and 
took  the  greatest  liberties  with,  their  sacred  texts."  But 
these  manuscripts  prove  the  very  opposite.  Brugsch 
says,  "Every  change  of  the  words  of  the  text  was  as 
vigorously  excluded  as  the  change  of  the  ancient 
Egyptian  form  of  the  year.  "2  Maspero  says,  They 
"have  come  to  us  without  many  interpolations."  Prof. 
Erman  of  Berlin  says.  "If  we  have  hitherto  believed  that 

1  When  the  pyramid  of  Unas, of  the  fifth  dynasty,  was  opened 
in  1881,  a  series  of  chapters  of  this  hook  was  found  in  it.  This 
same  series  of  chapters  had  also  been  found  on  a  tablet  of  the 
era  of  the  thirteenth  dynasty  at  Abydos,  and  also  on  one  of  the 
halls  of  the  era  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty  at  Thebes.  Here 
then,  before  the  age  of  Moses  we  have  a  sealed  pyramid  holding 
one  copy  for  1700  years  while  the  same  text  was  being  faithfully 
copied  and  preserved  during  all  that  time  in  other  eras  and  lo- 
calities. 

»  Quoted  by  Prof,  Osgood. 


210  WRITING   BEFORE   MOSES. 

the  immense  literature  of  the  Dead  arose  gradually  dur- 
ing the  long  history  of  the  Egyptian  people,  and  that  it 
must  be  possible  to  follow  the  development;  .  .  we  can 
hold  that  idea  no  longer.  This  literature  was  made  in  an 
epoch  that  lies  almost  beyond  our  historical  knowledge, 
and  later  times  did  no  more  than  pass  it  on." 

"If  the  Hebrews,  living  between  and  in  constant  touch 
with  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  carefully  copied  and  pre- 
served from  interpolation  their  sacred  books  from  the 
days  of  Moses,  or  long  before,  they  were  only  following 
a  custom  prevalent  from  hoar  antiquity  among  the 
heathen  nations  around  them,  and  pre-eminently  in 
Egypt,  where  they  grew^to  be  a  nation,  and  from  which 
they  had  just  come  out.  If  the  Hebrews  believed  that 
they  possessed  the  very  words  of  the  one  true  God,  they 
had  far  greater  reason  to  guard  their  treasure  than  the 
heathen  had."  ^ 

Not  only  was  all  this  the  case  before  Moses'  day,  but 
history  and  poetry  and  novel-writing  were  cultivated  in 
Egypt,  and  literature  was  reckoned  one  of  the  most  hon- 
orable of  professions  centuries  before  the  date  of  the  Ex- 
odus. If  the  Egyptians  had  a  rich  literature,  why  should 
not  the  Jews,  who  were  always  open  to  foreign  influences, 
have  imitated  them  in  this  regard,  and  especially  Moses, 
who  had  been  brought  up  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians  *? 

"Moses  is  expressly  said,  not  only  to  have  written 
laws,  but  in  two  instances  at  least,  historical  incidents  as 

2  Prof  H.  Osgood. 


CHAPTER  XXXII.  WRITING   BEFORE    MOSES.  211 

well,  which  shows  both  that  matters  designed  for  per- 
manent preservation  were  committed  to  writing,  and 
that  Moses  was  the  proper  person  to  do  it.  The  state- 
ment respecting  Amalek  was  to  be  written  for  'a  me- 
morial in  the  book,'  which  suggests  a  continuous  work 
that  Moses  was  preparing,  or  had  in  contemplation." 
That  the  explicit  mention  of  writing  in  these  instartcos 
does  not  justify  the  inference  that  he  wrote  nothing 
further,  is  plain  from  the  analogy  of  Is.  30.  8  ;  Jer.  30.  3; 
Ezek.  43.  11  ;  Hab.  2.  2."^ 
1  Prof.  W.  H.  Green. 


212  DISCOVERIES   IN 


CHAPTER    XXXIII. 

npHE  post=exilian  theory  is  improbable  in  view  of 
the  recent  discoveries  in  Egyptology  and  As- 
sy riology.  It  should  not  be  beyond  the  power  of  ration- 
alistic scholars  to  recall  their  proudly-taken  position  of 
twenty  years  ago.  The  then  prevailing  spirit  of  agnostic 
science,  applying  its  positive  methods  to  the  early  periods 
of  secular  and  sacred  history,  entirely  swept  away,  as 
untrustworthy  myth,  a  great  part  of  what  had  hitherto 
been  received  as  credible  ancient  history.  Greek  history 
was  declared  to  be  a  blank  before  the  epoch  of  Peisis- 
tratos,  or  even  before  Herodotos  and  Thukydides,  and 
the  history  of  Rome  was  said  to  begin  with  its  capture  by 
the  Gauls.  "What  the  higher  critics  had  so  successfully 
demolished  was  again  built  up  by  the  spade  of  the  exca- 
vator and  the  patient  skill  of  the  decipherer.  Schliemaun, 
strong  in  a  belief  which  no  amount  of  skilful  dialectic 
could  shake,  dug  up  the  ruins  of  Troy  and  Mykenae  and 
Tiryns,  and  demonstrated  that  the  old  tales  about  the 
culture  of  the  Akhaean  princes  were  not  so  far  from  the 
truth."!  Further  East,  and  nearer  the  cradle  of  man- 
kind, entire  civilizations  have  been  revealed  to  the  gaze 
of  this  generation.  "Records  belonging  to  periods  from 
1  Prof.  Geo.  H.  Schodde. 


EGYPTOLOGY   AND   ASSYRIOLOGY.  213 

which  we  are  separated  by  an  abyss  of  thousands  of 
years  have  been  rescued  from  oblivion.  The  Egypt  of 
the  Pharoah's  has  come  to  life  again,  and  the  Babylon 
of  Semiramis  and  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  Assyria  of  Sar- 
gon  and  Sardanapalus,  rise  like  phantoms  from  their 
graves."    ^ 

The  literature  thus  unearthed  exceeds  in  compass  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  a  help  in  historical  in- 
vestigation it  can  almost  rival  the  Greek  and  Latin  clas- 
sics. M.  Menant  maintains  that  the  texts  already  dis- 
covered in  Egypt  and  Assyria  would  fill  five  hundred 
octavo  volumes.  Only  a  year  or  two  ago  a  clay  litera- 
ture of  over  two  thousand  t.iblets  was  excavated  at  the 
temple  of  Bel  at  Niffer,  ranging  in  date  from  2,000  to 
1,500  B.  C,  with  a  stamped  brick  well  preserved  of  the 
y  Babylonian  king  who  reigned  in  the  north  about  3,750 
B.  C. 

This  extensive  literature,  not  merely  of  the  time  of 
Moses,  but  from  the  days  of  Abraham  and  Jacob,  pro- 
duced by  the  peoples  of  the  "two  rivers,"  with  whom  Is- 
rael came  into  contact,  and  to  whom  they  were  tied  by 
descent,  language  and  customs,  is  now  stored  in  the 
world's  great  museums,  and  is  being  studied  by  Egypt- 
ologists and  Assyriologists  of  all  nationalities.  One  re- 
sult, is  their  agreement  on  the  facts  already  pointed  out 
in  our  last  chapter,  facts  that,  so  far,  completely  over- 
turn the  gradual  development  theory  of  primitive  art  and 

civilization. 

% 
1  Prof.  Morris  Jastrow,  jr. 


Sl4  EGYPTOLOGY   AND   ASSYRIOLOGY. 

Another  result  is  that  the  general  course  of  events  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  have  become  clear.  "We  have 
histories  of  Assyrian  kings  who  up  to  a  short  time  ago 
were  known  only  by  name.  The  lists  of  the  occupants  of 
the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  thrones  are  now  virtually 
complete,  onward  from  the  fifteenth  century  before  our  era. 
We  know  know  far  more  of  Sennacherib  and  Esarhaddon 
than  we  do  of  their  contemporaries,  Hezekiah  and  Man- 
asseh  of  Judea;  of  earlier  times  we  have  at  least  as  copi- 
ous records  as  of  the  early  days  of  Greece  and  Rome; 
and  if  the  hopes  of  the  present  are  fulfilled,  in  another 
fifty  years  our  knowledge  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia  bids 
fair  to  rival  in  completeness  what  we  know  of  the  middle 
ages."^ 

A  third  result  is  the  information  that  at  the  earliest 
known  age  of  man.  Babylonia  and  Egypt  both  civilized, 
were  intimately  acquainted,  and  in  commercial  exchange 
with  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  and  the  Syrian  coast. 

The  earliest  monument  of  Egypt  is  not  found  in  Egypt, 
but  in  the  Wady  Magherah  of  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  materials  for  the  statues  of  Telle 
were  brought  to  the  Euphrates  from  the  Sinaitic  Penin- 
sula. We  know  that  two  hundred  years  before  the  ex- 
odus there  was  constant,  intercourse  between  Baby- 
lonia and  Egypt.  The  embassadors  would  write  their 
official  letters  and  reports  in  the  ordinary  Babylonian 
script.  In  Egypt  not  only  the  priests,  but  the  kings  de- 
pended largely  on   written   documents.     The   Egyptian 

1  Prof.  Morris  Jastrow,  Jr.,  in  Century  Magazine,  January  ,1894. 


CHAPTER  XXXIIl.  DISCOVERIES   IN  215 

state  was  "a  well-ordered  bureaucracy"^  In  the  middle 
and  later  empires  there  is  a  "clerk  of  the  court,  'the 
royal  writer  of  truth'  as  he  likes  to  be  called,  who  keeps 
the  minutes,"^  and  draws  up  the  record  of  the  criminal 
case  to  be  submitted  to  the  king.  The  thousands  of 
correspondence  tablets  unearthed  recently  in  Tel-el- Am- 
arna  show  that  the  Pharoahs  carried  on  an  extensive  ex- 
change of  letters  and  official  writings  with  scores  of 
cities  and  kingdoms  in  Western  Asia. 

Moreover,  in  Southern  Arabia,  Dr.  Edward  Glaser 
has  found  over  one  thousand  inscriptions  dating  back  to 
1500  B.  C,  and  earlier,  which  not  only  confirm  the  ex- 
istence of  a  Sabean  kingdom  there, and  make  the  visit  of 
the  Queen  of  Sheba  possible,  but  also  make  it  certain 
that  at  that  period  the  peoples  of  Western  Asia  were  any- 
thing but  unlettered  nations. 

Now  the  negative  theory  rests  upon  the  supposition 
that  the  authorship  of  so  large  a  work  as  the  Pentateuch 
at  so  early  a  date  is  a  historical  impossibility.  But  here 
we  have  abundant  and  independent  witneses,  after  the 
negative  critic's  own  heart,  though  not  to  his  taste, prov- 
ing that  long  before  the  era  of  Moses,  literature  flourished 
throughout  Egypt  and  the  whole  of  Southeastern  Asia; 
that  all  the  nations  that  surr  junded  the  Israelites  of  that 
period  possessed  and  used  letters,  and  that  consequently 
the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  is,  not  that  Israel 
had  no  literature,  but  that  she  should  have  an  extensive 
literature.  The  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  by  Moses 
1  Prof.  H.  V.  HilprecUt. 


|16  CHAPTER  XXXIII.  DISCOVERIES   IN 

accordingly  stands  in  the  best  possible   connection  with 
its  own  historical  background. 

The  negative  critics  are  naturally  rasped  by  these 
things,  and  do  not  relish  the  prospect  of  being  left  high 
and  dry  by  an  ebb  tide.  Canon  Cheyne  shows  this  de- 
cidedly in  his  remarks,  in  his  recent  work,  on  Sayce  and 
Ramsay,  He  fully  admits  that  "until  Schrader  and 
Sayce  arose,  Old  Testament  critics  did  not  pay  much  at- 
tention to  Assyriology, "  and  that  Kuehnen  did  not  give 
enough  attention  to  it,  and  that  Wellhausen  and  Robert- 
son Smith  in  former  years  displayed  an  excessive  distrust 
of  the  study.  He  claims  that  now  the  theory  has  "ab- 
sorbed '  all  the  facts  of  value  in  the  case.  In  other 
words,  the  negative  theory  ignored  the  results  of  Egyp. 
tian  and  Assyrian  research  at  first,  and  now  reluctantly 
admits  them,  as  far  as  they  do  not  clash  with  the  precon- 
ceived premises,  fundamental  to  the  existence,  of  the 
negative  theory.  And  even  now,  with  some  of  the  old 
arrogance,  Cheyne  writes,  "That  Mr.  Pinches  should 
have  come  forward  on  the  side  of  conservatism  ....  is 
of  no  significance.  .  .  .  The  same  remark  probably 
applies  to  Mr.  Flinders  Petrie."^ 

But  "as  in  the  case  of  Greek  history,  so  too  in  that  of 
Israelitish  history,  the  period  of  critical  demolition  is  at 
an  end,  and  it  is  time  for  the  archaeologist  to  reconstruct 
the  fallen  edifice."  While  he,  no  more  than  the  classical 
archaeologist,  cannot  corroborate  every  statement,he  can 
still  show   that  the   materials   on   which  the  history  of 

1  P.  366. 


ASSYRIOLOGT  217 

Israel  has  been  based,  are  historical  and  not  mythical 
materials,  goings  back  in  time  to  an  early  age,  which  the 
negative  theory  always  declared  to  be  impossible. 

The  Assyrian  tablets,  from  the  land  from  which  Abra- 
ham came,  and  of  the  seventh  century  B.  C,  contain  an 
extra  biblical  account  of  the  creation.  "The  similarity 
between  the  two  descriptions  extends  even  to  a  partial 
identity  of  expressions,  for  the  same  word  tehom  occurs 
in  both  the  cuneiform  tablet  and  in  Genesis  with  the 
signification  'deep.'  ....  The  fragments  accord  with 
the  biblical  narrative  in  two  essential  particulars.  Both 
accounts  assume  a  chaotic  condition  prior  to  the  crea- 
tion. Secondly,  the  creation  proceeds  in  both  according 
to  a  certain  system,  the  heavenly  bodies,  for  example, 
forming  a  distinct  division,  the  animals  another. "^ 

These  same  tablets  contain  an  account  of  the  flood, 
"equivalent  practically  to  an  identity  with  the  biblical 
version.  The  variations  are  slight,  and  effect  only  such 
minor  points  as  the  measurement  of  the  ark,  the  contin- 
uance of  the  flood,  and  the  sending  out  of  the  birds. 
Besides  this,  the  biblical  narrative  is  somewhat  more 
elaborate,  and  gives  details  concerning  the  animals.  .  .  . 
In  the  cuneiform  record  the  dire  decree  is  simply  a  whim 
of  the  gods  ;  in  the  Bible  the  Deluge  is  sent  as  a  puuish- 
ment  of  wrong-doing.  .  .  .  The  cuneiform  story  ends  as 
it  began — with  caprice  ;  the  reconciliation  of  Bel  is  as 
capricious  as  his^anger.     The  Bible  begins  with  the  pro- 

1  Prof.  M.  Jastrow,  Jr. 


218  CHAPTER  XXXIII.  DISCOVERIES 

mulgation  of    righteousness,    and   closes   with  the  con- 
firmation of  law."i 

In  an  inscription  on  a  stone  fonnd  by  an  American 
traveler,  Wilbour,  at  Luxor,  a  singular  confirmation  of 
the  historical  character  of  the  story  of  Joseph  has 
been  discovered.  In  thl:^,  mention  is  made  of  seven 
years  of  want  and  of  the  attempt  of  a  sorcerer  to  ban- 
ish the  calamity.  Brusch-Bey,  declares  that  ''notwith- 
standing the  mythical  character  of  the  contents,  the 
stone  of  Luxor  is  for  all  time  a  valuable  extra-Biblical 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  seven  years  of  famine 
in  the  days  of  Joseph." 

In  connection  with  the  Exodus,  the  location  of  the 
land  of  Goshen  is  established  beyond  a  doubt.  It  is 
known  that  at  the  period  just  preceeding  the  exodus,  the 
land  of  Goshen  was  full  of  Semitic  people.  This  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  Hebrew  words  were  mixed 
with  the  Egyptian  vocabulary  at  this  time,  and  that 
there  were  Hebrew  geographical  designations  of  the  re- 
gion of  Goshen.  In  the  papyrus  Sallier  I,  Semitic  pas- 
toral tribes  are  expressly  mentioned  as  roaming  all  over 
Goshen,  and  are  those  of  whom  it  is  said,  "And  a  mixed 
multitude  went  up  also  with  them."' 

The  Gudea  inscriptions,  at  least  a  thousand  years  be- 
fore Moses,  say,  with  other  things,  that  slaves  were 
given  a  seven  days  holiday  and  festival,  "thus  not  fore- 
shadowing the  time  of  Moses,  but  showing  that   the   di- 

1  Prof.  Jastrow. 

a  Ex.  12.  38. 


tN    EGT1»T0L0GT.  219 

rision  of  time  by  seven  was  known  many  centuries 
earlier  than  Moses,  which  indeed  is  implied  in  the  crea- 
tion story.  2  There  was  a  subject  people  of  Egypt  in  the 
time  of  the  Pharoahs  of  the  Exodus.  They  are  figured  on 
the  monuments  of  Rameses  II  and  Meneptah  I  as  foreign 
slaves,  engaged  in  building,  and  compelled  to  carry 
brick,  having  taskmasters  over  them.  • 

In  1883,  Pithom  Succoth,  one  of  the  "store-cities'* 
built  by  the  forced  labor  of  Hebrew  colonists  in  the 
time  of  the  oppression,  was  discovered  by  M.  Naville. 
Situated  near  the  border  of  the  land,  it  is  a  halting 
place  of  caravans  and  armies  marching  toward  the   east. 

In  the  same  year  the  Zoan  of  the  Bible  was  unearthed 
by  Mr.  Petrie.  A  year  later  Naukratis  and  other  historic 
sites  in  Goshen  were  discovered  by  the  same  explorer. 
These  and  further  corroborating  identifications*  actually 
locate  the  route  of  the  Israelites  to  the  Red  Sea,  and 
forvf  ard.  We  cannot  enter  into  the  large  matter  of  the 
Pharoahs  of  the  Exodus,  except  to  say  that  shortly 
after  the  Exodus,  Palestine  itself  was  lost  to  the 
Egyptians,  and  therefore  no  mention  is  made  of  the 
Pharaonic  i>ower  in  the  biblical  narratives  which  relate 
to  the  conquest  of  the  promised  land  by  the  Hebrews. 

From  the  Assyrian  monuments  we  know  that  by  the 
twelfth  century  B.  C,  the  Assyrian  king  had  established 

a  Wm.  Hayes  Ward. 

•  The  name  of  these  people,  Aperu,  has  been  pronounced  by 
George  Ebers  to  be  the  same  word  as  Hebrew,in  spite  of  several 
difficulties  against  the  derivation. 

*  See  also  "itadeih-Barnea"  by  H.  Clay  Trumbull. 


2t0  CHAPTEK  XXXIII.  DISCOVERIES. 

his  power  over  the  lands   of  the   Mediterranean.     In  the 
ninth  century  the  army  of  Shalmaneser  II   was   arrayed 
against  Benhadad  and  HazaeljSyriaa  princes  well  known 
to  us  from  the   Books   of  Kings.     An    Assyrian   monu- 
ment seven  feet  high  informs  us  that  in  the  Syrian  army 
were    "2,000  chariots   and    10,000  horsemen  of  Ahab  of 
Israel."     We  are  also  told  that  "there  were  three  years 
in  which  there  was  no  '^ar  between  Aram    and   Israel." 
From  this  time  on  dovvii   there   are  references  to  facts 
mentioned  in  the  Books  of  Kings,    together   with  the 
the  names  Israel,  Judea,  Jerusalem,  and  such  names   of 
the  Jewish  kings  as  Jehu,  Ahaz,  Hoshea  and    Hezekiah, 
in  a  very  wonderful  manner.     Of  Nebuchadnezzar,  we 
have  a  large  number  of  inscriptions.      When   the  annals 
of  his  military  expeditions  shall  be  found,  "we  shall   no 
doubt  read  of  his   expedition  against  Judea,  of  the  at- 
tack upon  Jerusalem,  of  the  destruction  of  the   city,    of 
the   capture   of  King   Jehoiachin,    and   of  the   carrying 
away  of  Judeans  to  'the  waters  of  Babylon.'  "^ 

TpHERE  is  probably  no  other  book  in  the  world  which 

at  first  stood  so  alone  in  its   historical   statements  ; 

and  which  at  last  was  so  confirmed  in  them, at  indepeud- 

1  Prof.  Jastrow.  We  have  quoted  from  this  author  partly  be- 
cause of  the  lucidity  of  his  statements  and  the  recent  date  of 
his  writing,  and  also  that  the  facts  might  not  be  suspected 
of  being  coloured  in  the  interest  of  orthodoxy.  For  he  is  him- 
self a  follower  of  the  negative  theory,  that  being  the  theory  in 
which  his  Hebrew  descent  and  rationalistic  views  can  most 
easily  be  combined. 


ANCIENT    HISTORY.  221 

ent  points,  centuries  apart,  by  an  actual    resurrection  of 
the  buried  past. 

And  yet  in  spite  of  these  witnesses  coming  from  the 
grave  to  testify  for  the  Old  Testament, the  human  reason 
is  not  ready  to  believe.  Said  Dives  to  Abraham,  "If 
one  went  to  them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.' ' 
Abraham  replied,  "If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose 
from  the  dead." 

It  is  true  that  the  IngersoUiau  infidelity,  in  regard  to 
the  Old  Testament,  is  doomed.  But  the  rationalistic 
mind  will  survive.  It  will  still  be  explaining  the  Old 
Testament  as  real  history  indeed,  but  as  history  mixed 
with  myth.  It  especially  objects  to  the  Levitical  Sys- 
tem. For  here  is  the  root  of  the  doctrine  of  expiatory 
sacrifice,  culminating  in  Christ.  And  he  who  does  not 
believe  that  a  supernatural  expiatory  sacrifice  ever  took 
place  on  the  cross,  is  bound  to  use  his  best  endeavours  to 
cut  the  whole  prophetical  foreshadowing  of  that  sacri- 
fice out  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  attributing  the  origin 
of  it  to  a  pious  fraud  of  the  priests.  And,  more  broadly, 
he  who  does  not  believe  in  a  direct  entrance  of  the  di- 
vine into  the  constitution  and  course  of  nature,but  attri- 
butes everything  to  evolution,  is  compelled  to  attempt  to 
explain  all  Old  Testament  supernatural  events  as  myths. 
Is  such  an  explanation  tenable  ? 

Attempting  to  determine  dates  and  authors  from  a  cor- 
respondence between  historical  surroundings  and  internal 


222  CHAPTER  XXIIII.  PENTATEUCHAL 

evidence,  the  negative  theory  has  not  noted  that  the  ac- 
curate correspondences  between  the  external  sur- 
roundings and  internal  details,  between  the  natural 
life  and  life  depicted  in  the  writings,  overturn  the 
hypothesis  of  Fraud  and  that  of  Myth. 

If  a  great  part  of  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  the 
waters  of  Babylon,  over  a  thousand  years  after  the  ex- 
odus, where — apart  from  the  priestly  preponderance^  — 
are  the  internal  historical  earmarks  that  betray  the  fact. 
Every  blade  in  the  field  points  away  from  Babylon,  and 
toward  the  desert  and  the  land  of  Egypt.  Both  the 
Laws,  and  the  Scenes,  and  the  accurate  Topography,  and 
the  Sinaitic  centre,  and  the  characters  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  fraud  or  myth. 

4  LL  the  Laws,  scattered  through  Exodus,  Leviticus 
and  Numbers,  which  are  assumed  to  have  been 
written  so  late  and  so  far  in  the  east,  bear  the  impress 
of  the  age  and  the  region  in  which  they  themselves 
claim  to  have  been  written.  The  occasion,  the  circum- 
cumstances,  and  the  facts  connected  with  their  actual 
observance  in  the  time  of  Moses,  are  in  many  cases  re- 
corded in  detail. 

**The  law  of  the  passover  was  given  when  each  father 
of  a  family  was  priest  in  his  own  house  ;  and  atonement 
could  be  made  by  sprinkling  the  doorposts.  The  minute 
details  respecting  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  and 

1  This  is  entirely  an  assumption,  but  does  not  here  enter 
into  the  question. 


LA-WS   AND   SCENES.  223 

its  vessels,  and  respecting  their  transportation  through 
the  wilderness,  sufficiently  vouch  for  their  authenticity. 
The  laws  respecting  oflferings  contemplate  Aaron  and  his 
sons  as  the  officiating  priests.  The  law  of  leprosy  has 
to  do  with  a  camp  and  with  tents.  The  law  of  the  day 
of  atonement  was  given  after  the  death  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu,  and  contemplates  Aaron  as  the  celebrant,  and 
the  wilderness  as  the  place  of  observance.  The  law  that 
no  animal  except  wild  game  should  be  slain  for  food, 
whether  'in  the  camp'  or  'out  of  the  camp,'  unless  it 
was  offered  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  would  have 
been  preposterous,  and  impossible  of  execution,  in  Ca- 
naan. The  law  of  the  red  heifer  is  directed  to  Eleazar 
the  priest,  and  respects  the  camp  of  Israel,  and  dwellers 
in  tents.  The  terms  in  which  the  laws  are  drawn  up 
make  it  evident  that  they  were  not  only  enacted  in  the 
wilderness,  but  that  they  must  have  been  committed  to 
writing  at  that  time.  Had  they  been  preserved  orally, 
changes  would  insensibly  have  been  made  in  their  lan- 
guage, to  adapt  them  to  be  altered  situation  of  the  peo- 
ple in  a  later  age,  when  settled  in  Canaan,  and  occupying 
fixed  abodes,  and  when  Aaron  and  Eleazar  were  no 
longer  the  priests." 

A  LL  the  Scenes  in  the  Pentateuch  are  so  soberly  and 
accurately   drawn  to   nature   and   to  life,  that  the 
explanation   of  myth   or    of  pious   fabrication   are    ex- 
cluded     The  Levitical  law  corresponds  closely  with    its 
external  scenes,  and  the  whole  story  corresponds  natur- 


224  CHAPTER  XXXIII.  PENTATEUCHAL 

ally  with  its  Egyptian  surroundings.  The  physical  ge- 
ography and  natural  products,  the  races  and  social  cus- 
toms, the  spirit  of  the  age,  the  historical  associations, 
the  conduct  of  war  and  nature  of  fortifications,  the 
character  of  Pharoah,  the  ark,  the  balling  of  the 
princess,  the  very  atmosphere  of  the  story,  shows  that 
its  author  and  the  giver  of  theLevitical  law  had  an  inti- 
mate acquaintance  with  Egypt  and  the  (>sert.  This  fa- 
miliarity with  Egyptian  objects  and  institutions  could 
scarcely  have  been  possessed  by  anyone  not  a  resident  in 
the  country.  If  Exodus  was  written  in  Babylon,  would 
there  have  been  any  reason  for  forbidding  the  Jews  to 
imitate  the  religious  usages  of  Egypt^  so  far  away  ! 

And  the  Egypt  which  is  so  accurately  delineated  is 
not  the  Egypt  of  the  time  of  the  exile  or  of  the  kings  of 
Israel,  but  the  Egypt  of  the  date  of  Moses.  If  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  written  during  the  exile,  we  must  suppose 
that  the  writer  devoted  himself  to  the  study  of  the  his- 
tory and  archaeology  of  Egypt  of  a  thousand  years  be- 
fore his  day,  and  projected  himself  so  thoroughly  into 
the  spirit  of  the  distant  times  in  a  foreign  country,  that 
when  he  came  to  write  of  them  he  moves  among  all  the 
thousand  details  of  ancient  Egyptian  life  with  easy  and 
confident  step,  and  never  makes  a  stumble. 

npHE  accurate  description  of  the  Topography  of  Egypt 

and  the  wilderness  show  that  the  author  must  have 

had  a  knowledge  of  these  countries,  such  as  one  without  the 

vicissitudes  in  the  life  of  a  Moses,  could  hardly  possess. 

In  the  scenes  of  desert  life,  contrasting  with  Egypt, 


SCENES    AND    TOPOGRAPHY.  225 

every  line  is  true  to  nature.  The  maidens  at  the  well 
watering  their  flocks;  driven  away  by  the  rough  shep- 
herds, who  treated  women  as  inferiors  ;  the  welcome  of 
Moses  to  the  tents  of  the  sheik,  their  father  ;  his  mar- 
riage to  one  of  the  daughters  ;  and  seeing  that  he  brought 
no  dowry,  his  consequent  subordination  to  Jethro, — all 
this  was  properly  and  distinctly  Arabian.  In  Egypt  on 
the  other  hand,  the  water  was  drawn  up  from  the  river 
and  its  canals;  the  people  were  not  nomadic  but  agricul- 
tural. The  thought  of  shifting  encampments,  according 
to  the  transient  fluctuating  supply  of  water,  upon  which 
the  life  of  the  flocks  depended,  leading  Moses  to  some 
spring-clad  wady  near  Horeb  was  an  incident  that  came 
not  into  the  mind  of  one  who  never  lived  in  the  desert. 
"These  pictures  of  desert  life  are  like  the  photographs 
of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  taken  by  the  ordnance  survey." 

The  greatest  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  is  asso- 
ciated with  Mt.  Sinai.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  was 
drawn  up  there.  Canaan,  the  dearest  land  on  earth  to 
the  Babylonian  Jew,  is  scarcely  mentioned.  Jerusa- 
lem, and  Mt.  Zion,  which  the  Babylonian  Jew  prized 
above  his  chief  joy,  are  not  mentioned  at  all.  If  the 
Sinaitic  revelation  was  a  myth,  the  faith  of  latter-day 
Israel  in  it  is  unexplainable,  as  the  scene  is  altogether 
outside  of  the  territory  of  Israel,  "the  holy  land  to  which 
as  the  critics  tell  us,  Jehovah  and  his  worship  were  so 
strictly  bound.  No  reason  can  be  given  why  this  most 
sacred  transaction,  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  entire 
history  and  worship  of  Israel,  should  have  been  referred 


226  CHAPTEK  XXXITT.  PENTATEUCHAL 

to  this  remote  point  in  the  desert,  away  from  the  sacred 
soil  of  Canaan,  away  from  every  patriarchal  association, 
away  from  every  spot  that  was  venerated  in  the  past  or 
that  was  hallowed  or  resorted  to  in  the  present,  unless 
that  was  the  place  where  it  actually  occurred.  That 
laws  first  issued  in  Jehovah's  name  in  Canaan  should  be 
attributed  to  this  mountain  in  the  wilderness,  with  which 
Jehovah  had  no  special  connection  before  or  since,  is  in- 
conceivable."^ 

The  negative  theory  cannot  explain  these  continuous 
annals  of  a  most  serious  and  historical  character,  of  a 
people  living  for  centuries  with  one  of  the  most  civilized 
nations  of  antiquity,  whose  leader  is  thoroughly  edu- 
cated in  that  wisdom,  who  frees  the  people  and  leaves 
them  a  code  of  laws  corresponding  with  the  circum- 
stances and  necessities  of  the  case,  and  with  the  external 
historical  surroundings,  which  laws  are  righteous  beyond 
those  of  any  other  nation  in  the  world,  and  which  Jesus 
Christ,  the  supernatural  Son  of  God,  claimed  that  He 
came  to  fulfil,  all  forming  a  part  of  the  only  strictly 
historical  narrative  of  events  beginning  where  the  world 
began. 

Still  less,  if  these  annals  are  Myths,  can  it  explain  the 
Characters  of  the  Pentateuch.  ^  The  characters  in  the 
Norse  and  Germanic    and  Classical  and   Oriental   myth- 

1    Prof.  W.  H.  Green. 

«  If  there  is  anything  at  all  of  the  nature  of  idealization  in 
the  Old  Testament,  certainly  we  would  look  most  of  all  for 
some  trace  of  it  in  the  Old  Testament  Characters. 


SCENES   AND   CHARACTERS.  227 

ologies  are  not  characters.    They  are  characterizations  of 
certain  qualities.     Or,  as  human  beings,  they  are  heroes. 

From  all  of  the  mythologies, there  cannot  be  extracted 
a  single  character  like  that  of  Adam  or  Abraham  or 
Moses.  Charles  Reade  says,  that  the  twenty-four  books 
devoted  by  Hotner  to  Ulysses,  have  not  engraved  "the 
much  enduring  man"  on  our  heart.  The  heroes  oC 
Homer's  epics  are  immortal  in  our  libraries,  but  dead  in 
our  lives.  "Xow  take  the  two  little  books  called  Sam- 
uel. The  writer  is  not  a  great  master  like  Homer  and 
Virgil,  But  the  characters  that  rise  from  the  historical 
strokes  of  that  rude  pen  are  solid.  .  .  Yet  this  writer 
had  no  monopoly  in  ancient  Palestine:  he  shares  it  with 
about  sixteen  other  historians." 

It  is  true  that  the  negative  theory  explains  the  differ- 
ence between  these  characters  and  those  in  the  mythol- 
ogies by  saying  that  the  Hebrew  natiou  was  a  nation  of 
high  moral  ideals  and  ideas.  But  just  therein  lies  the 
vital  weakness  of  the  theory.  For  it  cannot  explain  the 
fact  that  io  spite  of  the  high  moral  ideals  of  the  earlier 
prophetical  writers,  and  still  more  in  spite  of  the  strict 
ceremonial  precepts  of  the  later  compilers,  the  heroes  of 
earlier  ages,  even  the  grandest  and  most  national  ones, 
are  not  idealized.  Neither  the  pre-exilian  prophet,  nor 
the  precise  post-exilian  legalist,  who  had  no  compunc- 
tions ia  suppressing  what  was  not  to  his  purpose,  or  in 
committing  a  pious  fraud  for  the  common  public  good, 
at  all  smoothed  down  the  teirible  sias  of  the  greatest 
characters. 


228  CHAPTER   XXXIII.  PENTATEUCHAL 

Noah  became    disgracefully    drunk.     Abraham    per- 
suaded his  wife  to  pass  as  his  sister.     Moses  gave  way  to 
an  unworthy  fit  of  passion.  David  was  guilty  of  adultery 
and  murder.     Salomon   was  an   idolater  and    wrought 
folly.     Just  the  ones  of  whom  Israel  was  the  proudest, 
and  through  whom  the  Hebrews  had  to  teach  their  child- 
ren righteousness,    were   fatally   unfit  to   be   set   up  as 
models.     Do  myths  of  a  "moral"  and    "righteous"    na- 
tion "grow"  in  that  way  ?     Do  you  suppose  that   if  the 
Pentateuch  had  been  written  to  impress  and   reform   the 
common  people,  by  some  legalists  of  the  exile  ;   or    if  it 
has  been  interpolated  and  revised  by  a  learned  committee 
of  Ezra's  scribes,  with  the   express  object  of  piously  de- 
ceiAing  the  people  into  obedience  to  it,   that    we   should 
ever  have  heard  of  JSToah's   drunkenness,   of  Abraham's 
deception,    of    Lot's    disgrace,     of    Jacob's     cheating  ! 
Even  to-day  some  politic  historians  and   moralists  would 
advise  the  suppression  of  these  facts  on   grounds   of  the 
public  good.     But  those  strict  formalists,    who    accord- 
ing to  the  negative  theory,  were  piously  writing  entirely 
with  an  eye  to  effect,  and  did  not  scruple  to  revise  and  re- 
model history  to  fit  what  they  regarded  as  the  needs  and 
great  emergency  of  the  present,  when  they  came  to  such 
an   incident   in   the    mythical  tradition,    would    unani- 
mously have  concluded,  "There  is  no  use  in  saying   any- 
thing about  that.     It  will  do  no  good.     It  will  hurt   the 
cause  greatly.     It  is   something   the   people  better  not 
know." 
Let  us  take  a  crucial  case — the  story  of  Samson.  There 


CHARACTERS   NOT    MYTHICAL.  22& 

is  so  much  that  is  extraordinary  in  his  life  and  exploits; 
the  coincidences  between  events  in  his  history  and  cur- 
rent classical  legends  of  the  mythical  Hercules  are  so  re- 
markable that  he  is  an  unusually  good  specimen  for  the 
negative  theory  to  cite. 

But  Prof.  Blaikie,  in  a  recent  article,  has  shown  why 
the  character  of  Samson  cannot  be  explained  as  a  myth. 
"Myths  are  subject  to  laws  and  conditions,  and  have 
marked  features  that  differentiate  them  from  history  ; 
they  are  usually  directed  to  glorify  their  hero,  whom  at 
last  they  place  virtually,  if  not  formally,  in  the  ranks  of 
the  gods.  In  the  Hebrew  story  of  Samson,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  is  an  utter  want  of  harmony  between  the 
supernatural  element  and  the  character  of  the  hero. 
The  twofold  annunciation  of  his  birth  might  have  been 
expected  to  herald  the  appearance  of  a  servant  of  God, 
lofty  in  character.  But  in  Samson  we  are  surprised,  if 
not  shocked,  at  the  wild,  rollicking  life,  the  uncouth 
methods  even  of  delivering  his  people,  and  the  savagery 
which  marks  his  exploits.  So  far  from  his  showing 
anything  of  the  solemn  dignity  of  the  prophet,  he  is 
wanting  even  in  the  gravity  of  a  responsible  citizen. 
The  most  extreme  rationalist  would  find  it  impossible  to 
reconcile,  as  the  creation  of  a  poetic  fancy,  an  annuncia- 
tion so  spiritual  with  a  career  so  carnal.  Then,  too,  his 
consecration  as  a  Nazarite  is  another  circumstance,  in- 
compatible with  the  idea  of  a  mythical  origin.  So  far 
from  his  fulfilling  the  ideal  of  that  office,  his  ordinary 
demeanour,  except  in  the  matter  of  abstinence  from   the 


^30   CHAPTER  XXXIII.    CHARACTERS  NOT  A  MTTH. 

fruit  of  the  vine,  outraged  it.  A  third  point  where  any 
legend-theory  must  fail  is,  to  explain  the  peculiar  na- 
ture of  the  service  which  Samson  rendered  to  his  coun- 
try. Personally,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  hated  the 
Philistines,  but  rather  the  contrary.  When  he  attacks 
them  it  is  in  revenge  for  some  personal  injury.  This 
would  not  excite  the  spirit  of  legend,  or  create  a  desire 
to  make  a  hero  of  the  performer.  A  strong  man  that  in 
return  for  personal  injuries  had  inflicted  much  havoc  on 
a  people  with  whom  he  was  usually  on  friendly  terras,  is 
not  the  man  round  whose  memory  the  spirit  of  admira- 
tion, love,  and  honour  rises  to  its  utmost  height.  There 
must  be  more  of  the  disposition  to  identify  himself  with 
his  people,  more  ordinary  forgetfulness  of  self,  to  rouse 
the  legendary  spirit.  A  fourth  conclusive  argument 
against  the  legendary  theory  is  its  incorapatihility  with 
the  treatment  received  by  Samson  from  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  So  far  from  being  roused  by  his  exam])le,  they 
blamed  him  for  irritating  their  foes, and  actually  had  the 
meanness  to  lay  hold  of  him,  that  they  might  deliver 
him  to  the  Philistines.  'Would  anything  like  this  ever 
have  occurred  to  a  maker  of  myths?  What  glory  could 
such  legends  bring  either  to  the  hero  or  to  the  nation  ? 
The  rejection  of  Samson  by  the  tribe  of  Judah  was  a 
greater  ignominy  than  his  having  his  eyes  put  out  by  the 
Philistines,  or  his  being  called  to  make  sport  for  them 
at  their  feast.  It  spoiled  his  public  life,  and  reduced 
him   to  the  position   of  one  who  had  only  showed  how 


Jl  supernatural  revelation.  231 

great  things  he  might  have  done  if  he  had  been  properly 
supported  by  his  nation." 

There  is  a  vast  difference  between  a  religion  of  myth, 
and  a  religion  of  divine  inspiration.  ''The  Old  Testa- 
ment religion,  like  the  Christian,  did  not  come  forth  out 
of  humanity,  according  to  the  mere  law  of  natural 
spiritual  development.  It  rightly  regards  itself  as  called 
into  existence  by  God  ...  by  the  clear  separation  of 
this   one  people   from  the  life   of  the  other  peoples   of 

the  world Indeed,    the    natural    life    of  Israel, 

where  it  follows  its  own  promptings,  comes  constantly 
into  conflict  with  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Hence  it  can  be  explained  only  by  revelation,  i.  e,  by  the 
fact  that  God  raised  up  for  this  people,  men  who  pos- 
sessed religious  truth  not  as  a  result  of  human  wisdom 
and  intellectual  labour,"^  nor  as  a  result  of  mystical  in- 
sight, and  through  whom  God  gave  us  in  the  Scriptures, 
"an  infallible  and  inerrant  guide  for  all  the  purposes  for 
which  God  has  given  us  a  revelation." 

There  are  persons  whom  no  new  theory  of  the  Bibli- 
cal writings  can  ever  disturb.  They  are  those  who  are 
sure  that  they  have  been  redeemed  from  sin,  death  and 
the  power  of  the  devil  with  Christ's  holy  and  precious 
blood,  and  with  his  innocent  sufferings  and  death.  In 
their  own  experience  they  have  known  the  need  and  the 
power  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  No  amount  of  learn- 
ing and  no  number  of  witnesses  can  shake  their  faith. 
They  have  in  their  own  heart  a  witness  for  the  very  thing 

1  Herman  Schultz. 


232 

which  is  the  nefj^ative  critic's  stumbling  block  and  rock 
of  offense  in  the  Old  Testament,  namely  the  presence  of 
the  supernatural.  1  They  know  that  they  are  "new 
creatures  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  that  the  presence  of  su- 
pernatural power  has  made  them  such. 

There  are  other  persons  who  can  be  completely  capti- 
vated by  such  a  theory.  Over  a  large  class  of  minds  it 
has  attained  a  power  like,  says  Delitzsch,  the  spell  of 
Hartmanu's  Philosophy  of  the  Unonscious.  There  are 
still  other  persons  whom  it  will  entirely  unsettle  and 
confuse.  And  there  are  others  who  will  greet  any  release 
from  the  Bible  with  gladness.  On  the  whole,  the  his- 
t  )ry  of  such  movements  in  the  Christian  Church  shows 
that  they  do  present  harm,  but  through  the  struggle 
they  inaugurate  and  the  examination  they  necessitate, 
they  in  the  end  further  the  cause  of  Him  who  is  the 
same,  Yesterday,  To-day,  Forever. 
1  Stearns:  The  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience. 


9 
>-<^^^^ 


BS1160.S34 

The  negative  criticism  and  the  Old 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00041   2207 


